The Issue Whether or not the Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance and completion of several construction projects constitute unreasonable or dilatory practices and also whether Respondent's workmanship on such projects was of such an inferior quality that it would indicate proof and continued evidence of gross negligence or misconduct by Respondent in the practice of contracting within the meaning of Chapter 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979). 2/ Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, the memoranda submitted, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed April 27, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to revoke Respondent's license to practice the profession of contracting and to impose a civil penalty based on conduct set forth hereinafter. Respondent, Charles H. Bromley, is a certified pool contractor holding License No. CP-007871 (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1). During times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint herein, Respondent was a qualifying agent, pursuant to Section 489.119, Florida Statutes, for both Wands Construction Company, Inc., and for Magic Wands Pools, Inc. Respondent's testimony established that he was part owner of Wands Construction Company, Inc., was an officer of that company and deemed himself responsible for its activities. Respondent testified that he owned no stock in the predecessor company, Magic Wands Pools, Inc., nor was he an officer of that corporation and was not directly responsible for contracts undertaken by that company. Respondent's position is that at least two of these construction projects (Derfler and Dubovick) were projects undertaken by Magic Wands Pools, Inc., and completed by Respondent, doing business as, Wands Construction Company, Inc., inasmuch as Magic Wands Pools closed its doors in late 1979. Wands Construction Company, Inc., entered into a contract with Mariner Village, Inc., to construct a pool at a condominium site being developed by that corporation. The contract was dated September 6, 1979, and called for completion of the pool within six weeks from the date of issuance of a permit. The permit for pool construction was issued on November 6, 1979. Respondent was unable to complete construction of the pool at Mariner Village, inasmuch as problems developed after the pool was filled which caused the pool walls and decking to crack and leak. Respondent attempted to correct the deficiencies in the pool until approximately August of 1980, at which time he was ordered off the job by Mariner Village, Inc. Robert Hamilton, the developer and president of Mariner Village, was the person with whom Respondent negotiated the contract to build the pool for Mariner Village. During the course of time in which Respondent was attempting to correct the problems at Mariner Village, its president, Robert Hamilton, sent approximately six mailgrams to Petitioner reciting his contention that Mariner Village considered Respondent's actions to be a breach of its contract; that the pool was not completed in a professional-like manner and that Respondent's overall performance, or lack thereof, constituted negligence. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 3 and 4.) When Respondent completed the construction phase of the pool, neither the city nor the county would issue a certificate of occupancy to allow the residents of Mariner Village to use the pool. While it was noted that the county initially issued Respondent a certificate of occupancy for its construction of this pool site, that certificate was immediately revoked due to surface cracks in the pool on the north, east and west ends of the pool once it was filled to capacity. Robert Hamilton, president of Mariner Village, testified that at this time (during the hearing) he thought that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy was imminent and that while the price called for in the contract between Respondent and Mariner Village was $20,450.00, it (Mariner Village) had expended or was obligated to expend sums totaling $70,000.00 to complete the pool. Mr. Hamilton ordered two engineering studies to examine and report on performance in the Respondent's construction of the pool. According to Hamilton, the reports revealed that the pool was erected on "good" pilings. Respondent and Leslie Derfler entered into a contract on June 9, 1978, to construct a pool at his residence. The contract price was paid in full and the pool was completed, however, during the spring of 1979, Mr. Derfler detected an opening around the tile grout near the leaf-skimmer. The matter was immediately called to Respondent's attention. Failing to get a prompt response to his complaint, Mr. Derfler contacted the Better Business Bureau after which Mr. Derfler was able to communicate with Respondent during March of 1980. Respondent dispatched a repairman to regrout the tiles in the area around the leaf-skimmer, however, the repairman failed to regrout the tiles which he replaced. As a result, the door of the skimmer became inoperative and separated from the skimmer. Repeated attempts by Mr. Derfler to contact Respondent were unavailing and Mr. Derfler called another company (Boca Pool-Trol Laboratories, Inc.) to finish the necessary work. In this regard, evidence reveals that Respondent reimbursed Mr. Derfler for the monies paid to the Boca Pool-Trol Laboratories, Inc. Respondent and Lindberg Development Company, through its assistant project manager, Taisto Pistkan, entered a contract on January 31, 1980, for the installation of a commercial swimming pool at Shore Heights Condominiums in Lantana, South Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent commenced construction on the pool during August, 1980, and the pool was not completed, such that it could be used, until June, 1981. Mr. Pistkan had to make repeated requests of Respondent to correct numerous problems, including leaks, falling plaster and tiles. When Respondent initially completed construction of the pool and it was filled, during September, 1980, leaks surfaced and approximately nine months later (June, 1981) Respondent completed construction of the pool and a certificate of occupancy was issued. In this regard, Respondent admitted during the hearing that it took an inordinate amount of time to make the necessary repairs to get the Lindberg pool certified. On August 10, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Dubovick entered into a contract with Magic Wands Pools to construct a pool at their residence in Delray Beach, Florida. This contract called for the completion of the pool within six weeks from the date that the permit was issued. In October of 1979, an agent of Wands Construction, which agent had previously been an agent of Magic Wands Pools, informed Mr. Dubovick that he would have to enter into a new contract due to a reorganization of the pool company. As a result of that advice, the Dubovicks and Respondent entered into another contract with Wands Construction Company, Inc., on October 25, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibits 10 and 11.) According to Mr. Dubovick, the second contract was signed to "straighten out the paper work." Mr. Dubovick was advised that all of the material terms of the new contract would remain unchanged and that the work would be completed within approximately eight weeks. However, the contract with Wands Construction Company does not contain a completion date. Excavation for the pool was made during the middle of October, 1979. Thereafter, no further work was done during that year and the wooden deck of the Dubovicks' home, which was adjacent to the hole dug for the pool, collapsed on New Years Eve, 1979. Thereafter, there were a number of problems with the construction of the pool, including the fact that a spa was not built as called for in the plans for the pool which necessitated that the Respondent remove a portion of poured gunite around the pool's deck; the filter was improperly installed and leaks surfaced when the pool was filled, causing Respondent to place numerous patches and filter outlets in the pool. Additionally, the slope of the pool decking was improper and caused a flooding condition around the Dubovicks' patio. The dimensions of the pool were not completed according to plans in that the length of the pool as completed is 30 feet, 3 inches, whereas the plans called for the pool to be 34 feet in length. The contract provides that the pool would have a 15,000 gallon capacity whereas Mr. Dubovick contends that he has never been able to measure more than a 10,000 gallon capacity while he filled the pool. The pool was completed in July of 1980. Kim Parker, a certified pool contractor, testified on behalf of Petitioner concerning two of the projects complained of in the Administrative Complaint. Consultant Parker is a licensed pool contractor and has been certified approximately two years. He is presently the general manager for Almar Pools. Mr. Parker has supervised pool construction in excess of two years. Mr. Parker visited the Mariner Village project on August 28, 1981, and noted hairline cracks in the plaster around the pool. Those cracks indicated to him that the plaster was either improperly applied or cured. He also noted a return fitting protruding into the pool, which he considered to he evidence of "shoddy" workmanship. Mr. Parker also noticed that the pumps in the pump room were not installed in a "professional" manner. During this time period, Mr. Parker also visited the Dubovicks' residence and he noted that an air leak existed at the filter pump, which caused a loud noise and that the pool was situated approximately three inches above the patio which created a drainage problem. In this regard, the Dubovicks testified that two doors were ruined due to water drainage problems around the pool area. Mr. Parker considered the workmanship around the Dubovick pool to be professional in its appearance although he did note that the pool was not constructed to the measurements provided for in the contract. Respondent's Defense Respondent, Charles Bromley, qualified Magic Wands Pools during 1978. He did so, according to him, based on "bad legal advice." Respondent encountered numerous problems completing pools that were under construction for Magic Wands Pools while he also was handling the day-to-day affairs of the successor corporation. Respondent has completed all except two out of forty-two pools that remained incomplete when he took over and Magic Wands Pools ceased operations in late 1979. Respondent contends that the former owner dumped "problem" pools on him which included the Mariner Village pool. William Sheldon, a professional engineer who has acted as a consultant in the design of numerous pools (in excess of 1,000) was called as a witness to testify on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Sheldon visited the Mariner Village pool and studied the design. He concluded that inadequate pilings were the source of the problems with the Mariner Village pool. That is, he considered the pilings failed to give adequate support and that this was of no fault or could not result in any liability on Respondent's part, inasmuch as the pool contractor was not responsible for the pilings erected to provide support for the pool. Mr. Sheldon noted that the pilings were driven to substantially less depth than other short piles in the area which led him to conclude that the developers used "soft" piles which had a low-blow content. He concluded that this caused cracks to radiate out of the east end of the pool creating leaks. Mr. Sheldon's examination of the elevations around the pool indicated that the gutters were level; that the problem was therefore one relating to the pool's substructure and not due to any construction deficiency. Also, Mr. Sheldon noted that, based on his calculations, without the usual allowance in calculations for an approximate ten percent (10 percent) deviation in a pool's volume capacity, his calculations indicated that the pool would hold approximately 11,872 gallons whereas the plans called for an approximate gallonage capacity of 10,500 to 11,000 gallons. Finally, Mr. Sheldon indicated that his review of the pool construction at Mariner Village only indicated that there existed one extrusion which he considered not to be critical in view of the overall construction and the pool's layout. Respondent testified that construction at Mariner Village progressed at a reasonable pace indicating that on May 8, 1980, the pool was marble coated, however, the equipment was not completed in the pool room and therefore work could not proceed as scheduled. According to Respondent, the earliest time that the equipment was in place, by other subcontractors, was approximately August 18, 1980, and work commenced rapidly thereafter by Respondent's employees. Respondent testified that an engineer inspected the gutters on July 16, 1980, at which time the gutters were properly erected and that within four days, i.e., on July 20, 1980, the gutters were "low" and the tiles had sunk. Respondent replaced the gutters without cost, however, he refused to do further work on the pool until the substructure was solidified. During this period, Respondent also testified that Mariner Village failed to timely honor draw payment requests which forced him to stop work until funds were received according to the schedule for draws. Finally, Respondent testified that the pilings and related substructures were obligations contracted for and hired independently by the general contractor. For this reason, the Respondent offers that he was not obligated for the failures surrounding the pool at Mariner Village. Respondent admits that the Dubovick project caused problems in that it was one that was left from the predecessor entity, Magic Wands Pools. He admits to delays in construction, however, he testified that he labored as faithfully as he could under the circumstances and further that all corrections and/or repairs were made that were called to his attention. As to the contention that the pool was constructed smaller than the 15,000 gallon volume capacity as reflected in the plans and specifications, Respondent indicates that the 15,000 gallon capacity was an error and further that the Dubovicks never indicated to him that there was any discrepancy or deviations from requirements in the plans and specifications as he was required to do according to the terms of the contract. Respondent indicates a willingness to negotiate with the Dubovicks respecting this omission. Finally, Respondent testified that he never met the Derflers, although he did dispatch a repairman out to remedy their problem. Respondent considered that the problem had been resolved and was unaware that it had not until the subject complaints were filed. Respondent has, however, refunded the Derflers' monies which were expended to hire an outside contractor. Throughout the time in which Respondent was attempting to complete or correct projects which had been started or initiated by Magic Wands Pools, he labored to do so with as much dispatch as possible under the circumstances. Respondent indicates that money was due and owing Magic Wands Pools by many customers who refused or was slow to pay. Respondent has been in the pool construction business in excess of twenty years and based on the experience gained and the nature of that business he (Respondent) refuses to guarantee a completion date for a pool due to weather and other uncertainties beyond his control. He again acknowledged that the repairs took a great deal of time to complete, however, he stressed that he labored to perform those repairs in as much dispatch as possible under the circumstances. Concluding, Respondent offered that part of his problem with the Dubovick pool had to do with his attempt to stay within the setback lines of the Dubovicks' property which prompted him to make minor deviations from the plans and specifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, who holds certified pool contractors License No. CP- 007871, be placed on probation by Petitioner for a period of one year. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1982, 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 26th day of January, 1982.
Findings Of Fact On December 30, 1975, Collier County adopted Ordinance No. 75-57 which required, among other things, swimming pool contractors to be licensed by the county or state after establishing their competency. Prior to this time swimming pool contractors did not need certificates of competency to construct swimming pools. Anthony Schmidt had been engaged in the manufacture and installation of swimming pools for several years before opening a swimming pool business in Collier County. On April 22, 1976 Schmidt entered into a contract (Exhibit 1) to construct a swimming pool for John Dottore in Naples, Florida. Shortly thereafter Schmidt was issued a violation by an investigator of the FCILB for starting a different pool without a license. Schmidt contacted friends to ascertain who he could get to "pull" the permit needed to construct Dottore's pool, and was subsequently introduced to George C. Moyant, Respondent, a resident of Hollywood, Florida. He was introduced to Moyant at Moyant's house at a meeting arranged by mutual friends. The alleged purpose of this meeting was special tutoring of Schmidt by Moyant to prepare Schmidt for the pool contractor's exam and no other subject was discussed at this meeting. No final arrangements for such tutoring were made. Respondent holds Pool Contractor's License # CP C009205 and General Contractor's License #CG C001828 issued by the FCILB. He is president of Allstate Construction College, Inc. and prepares applicants for the various examinations required for registration with the FCILB. Subsequent to the meeting at Moyant's house Schmidt contacted Moyant regarding Moyant pulling a permit for Schmidt to construct Dottore's pool, and on a subsequent visit by Moyant to Naples Moyant, in company with Schmidt, submitted an Application for Building Permit (Exhibit 4) prepared and signed by Schmidt, showing the contractor to be George C. Moyant, License #CP C009205. At the same time Collier County Permit (Exhibit 5) was issued to Moyant as contractor for the construction of a swimming pool for Dottore. Immediately thereafter, at the Collier County Courthouse parking lot Schmidt gave Moyant a check dated May 4, 1976 in the amount of $500. Moyant's testimony that the payment was an advance for tuition is not credible. Moyant admits that Schmidt called him around the first of May for help in getting a permit for the swimming pool for Dottore and that he, Moyant, was "very reluctant" but assented to come to Naples to help Schmidt out and in fact, pulled the permit. Moyant recognized that his actions were in violation of the laws unless "one does things correctly." He advised Schmidt that his brother or the mutual friend, both of whom have general contractor's licenses would act as his, Moyant's, agent "if any problems come up". Before Schmidt completed the pool an investigator for the FCILB became aware of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the permit and the investigation and administrative complaint followed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, in conjunction with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 120, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. During times material, Respondent, Donald F. Colombo, was licensed as a certified pool contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CP 15343. During times material, Respondent's license was registered with Petitioner as the qualifying agent for National and Spa Builders, Inc. (National). On or about May 27, 1988, National, the entity which Respondent was the qualifying agent, contracted with Diane and Leonard Cline to construct a pool at the Cline's residence in Tarpon Springs, Florida, for the contract price of $9825.00. The Clines financed the construction of the pool by placing a security interest against their property for the full purchase price of the pool. The full contract price of $9825.00 was paid to National and after National completed approximately 40% of the pool construction, National abandoned the project without notice or just cause. National never completed construction of the pool and the Clines obtained a homeowner's building permit and completed the pool project at an additional cost of approximately $5,000.00. Additionally, liens were filed against the property of the Clines by Florida Mining and Materials Concrete Corporation in the amount of $682.00 and Jim's Custom Pool Work in the amount of $135.00. The above-referred liens were for work performed and/or materials supplied in the construction of the Cline pool project by National. On or about May 20, 1988, National entered into a contract with Ben and Linda Thomas to construct a pool at their residence in Lutz, Florida, for the contract price of $9000.00. Following commencement of construction, National received approximately 60% of the contract price ($5,400.00) and later abandoned the project without notification or just cause to the Thomas's. The Thomas's subsequently completed their pool at an additional cost of approximately $1,000.00 over and above National's original contract price. On or about January 11, 1989, Respondent was disciplined by the Hillsborough County Building Department, Building Board of Adjustments, Appeals and Examiners for alleged violation of local laws including abandoning a construction project; alleged willful and deliberate disregard of applicable building codes; allegedly allowing liens to be filed against a project for which he was the contractor and for allegedly diverting funds from a construction project. Respondent was assessed an administrative penalty of a 30-day suspension of his permitting privileges by the Hillsborough County Building Department. Respondent was the qualifying agent for National during the 90-day period commencing April 1 through June 30,1988. Respondent formally terminated his status as qualifying agent for National and also tendered his resignation from that entity based on difficulties that he ecountered respecting his attempts to serve as qualifier to include his inability to control the finances, to be kept apprised of accounts receivable, accounts payable, an inability to select contractors and material suppliers and to assure that the payments for such services were timely remitted. Prior to Respondent's engagement with National as a pool salesman and later as qualifier, National was a well reputed pool company, having been in existence in excess of twelve years. National annually constructed approximately 750 pools with accounts receivable in the $10 to $12 million dollar range. Prior to April 1988, National was a secure and stable company that regularly paid its bills and grew at a rapid pace. While engaged with National, Respondent was unaware that there was internal collusion among its owners respecting diversion of funds. Respondent repeatedly attempted to gather a handle on the internal financial operations of the company and on each occasion he was rebuffed. within the first month that Respondent qualified National, he began to seek advice as to the proper means of salvaging his license by contacting a local attorney, the local office of Petitioner, and Petitioner's headquarters in Tallahassee seeking the proper procedures for ending his relationship with National. This came about once it became apparent that he was unable to effectively manage or otherwise perform the functions of a qualifying agent. Respondent formally severed his relationship as qualifying agent for National on June 30, 1988. Subsequent to ending his status as qualifying agent for National, Respondent assisted the Clines in the completion of their pool. Mr. Cline specifically recalled that Respondent assisted him in locating other subcontractors and with the purchase of plumbing supplies for his pool without remuneration from the Clines. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1F; Tr. 30-32.) Likewise, Respondent also assisted the Thomas's in completing their pool. (Tr. 45, lines 23-24.) Respondent demonstrated compassion and a proper concern which was evident based on the testimony of the complaining witnesses who appeared at the formal hearing. Significantly, Petitioner's investigator, H. Dennis Force, related that Respondent assisted him in his investigation of the subject charges. To this end, Respondent supplied him with the names of all customers with which National had contracts with during the period that he was National's qualifying agent. It is unfortunate that Respondent was not able to control the fiscal policies of National during the period that he was the qualifying agent, although from a review of the evidence herein, it is apparent that this was not based on his failure to attempt to gain control over the situation as a qualifying agent, but was rather based on the collusion of National's higher-ups who was determined to keep Respondent in the dark. Noteworthy was the fact that within a three-month period, National changed banks at least eight times. It would have been, at best, difficult if not impossible for Respondent to have gained a handle on National's financial condition and to do the things with which a qualifying agent is charged with during the short period during which Respondent was National's qualifying agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 and placing his certified pool contractor's license on probation for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Henry J. Tinkler was licensed by petitioner as a swimming pool contractor, holding license No. 0024949, under the name of "Henry J. Tinkler." At one time, Fred C. Charlton worked as a "salesman" of swimming pool construction contracts for a Ft. Lauderdale construction company. When the Ft. Lauderdale company failed, several contracts to build swimming pools remained unexecuted. So that his "sales" would not have been in valid, Mr. Charlton organized Aquapool in late 1978 or early 1979 to step in to the shoes of the Ft. Lauderdale contractor. He has been president of the corporation since its inception. He knew that he could not pull building permits himself; and Mr. Charlton did not involve himself in the actual construction of the pools. Respondent became vice-president of Aquapool and held this office until September of 1979. Respondent has built several pools pursuant to oral agreements with Charlton (acting for Aquapool), to build all pools Aquapool "sold" in Pinellas County. In these transactions, Charlton made a profit and Tinkler made a profit. Respondent never applied for any building permit under Aquapool's name. He always used his own name or the name "Hank's Custom Pools." Respondent never made application to qualify Aquapool as a registered pool contractor in Florida. Neither did respondent make application to qualify "Hank's Custom Pools" as a registered pool contractor. Not uncommonly, contractors do business under fictitious trade names like "Hank's Custom Pools." Eventually one Clay Andrews of Jacksonville made application to quality Aquapool as a swimming pool contractor in Florida until November 17, 1979. Harry George Pugh and Grace L. Pugh signed, on May 19, 1979, a contract with Aquapool for construction of a swimming pool at their Indian Rocks Beach home. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On the building permit application form, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, the contractor is listed as "Hank's Custom Pools." The application is dated June 19, 1979. Mr. Pugh never met Mr. Tinkler. Guy Jean and Jane A. Narejo also contracted with Aquapool to build a swimming pool at their home in Largo, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Pugh never met Mr. Tinkler. On June 14, 1979, "H. Tinkler" applied for a permit to build the pool. The permit issued the following day. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Willard L. Marks and Helen J. Marks signed, on May 1, 1979, a contract with Aquapool for construction of a swimming pool at their home in Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. Mr. Marks never met Mr. Tinkler. H. J. Tinkler applied for a permit to build the pool on June 7, 1979. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Swimming pool contractors ordinarily subcontract electrical work. Sometimes as many as four or five subcontractors participate in the building of a swimming pool. Petitioner's proposed recommended order has been considered and proposed findings of fact have been adopted except where they have been deemed irrelevant or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's registration as a swimming pool contractor for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald Nelson, Esquire 4950 West Kennedy Tampa, Florida 33609 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32302 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION/CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-3043 HENRY J. TINKLER, RP 0024949 d/b/a Individual 5243 27th Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced beyond the scope of his certified commercial pool/spa contractor’s license and proceeded on a job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the nature of the sanctions to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the construction industry, including pool and spa contractors and electrical contractors, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed as a commercial pool/spa contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers CPC 05661, 1457406, and 1458031. Respondent was the primary qualifying agent of Cox Building Corporation, d/b/a Cox Pools (Cox Pools). Respondent has been registered, certified, or licensed as a swimming pool contractor since 1978. Over the course of his almost 40 years as a swimming pool contractor, Respondent has replaced thousands of pool lights and pool pumps. He believed that the replacement of pool equipment, which he understood to include pool lights, was within the allowable scope of work as a swimming pool contractor. On or about September 12, 2014, Cox Pools entered into a contract with John Patronis to replace four pool light fixtures, a booster pump, and other miscellaneous services for $4,681.17 at the Subject Property. The Subject Property falls within the jurisdiction of the Bay County Building Department. Respondent did not obtain an electrical permit for replacing the pool light fixtures at Subject Property. Mr. Carnley testified that the Bay County Building Department requires that pool light replacement be performed by a licensed electrician, and with a county-issued electrical permit. The permit must be obtained by an electrical contractor or a homeowner. Bay County would not have issued a permit to Respondent, because he was not an electrical contractor. The Bay County Building Department also requires an electrical permit for the replacement of a circuit breaker in the electrical box serving a swimming pool. A pool contractor is not authorized to replace circuit breakers. No permits were obtained to replace circuit breakers at the Subject Property. On September 15, 2014, during the course of replacing the pool light fixtures, an employee of Cox Pools, Joshua Cook, was electrocuted. The precise cause of the electrocution was not established, though no plausible basis exists for it being related to anything other than the replacement of the pool lights. After a period of several days following the accident involving Mr. Cook, Respondent returned to the Subject Property to complete the job. He personally went into the pool, put the light in the fixture and screwed it in, and left. The light was thereafter wired and energized by a Cox Pool service technician. Given the circumstances, Mr. Patronis was not asked to complete payment for the services performed. Nonetheless, it is clear that, but for the accident, Mr. Patronis would have been expected to pay for the services for which he contracted. The photographic evidence in this case demonstrates that between September 15, 2014, and some indeterminate time in 2016, a circuit breaker was replaced in the electrical box serving the Subject Property’s pool. The circuit breaker that existed on September 15, 2014, was a ground-fault circuit interrupter (GFCI). By 2016, the GFCI has been replaced with an arc-fault circuit interrupter (AFCI). Had Bay County performed an inspection of the electrical box with the AFCI, it would not have passed inspection. Respondent testified that he did not change the circuit breaker, that Cox Pools keeps no inventory of circuit breakers, and that service technicians do not carry circuit breakers on the trucks. Respondent acknowledged his understanding that replacing a circuit breaker is a job for an electrical contractor. At some time “recently,” Williams Electric was called to the Subject Property, at which time Mr. Williams “swapped out a breaker or two that was an incorrect type of breaker for the application.” Mr. Patronis was not clear whether an arc breaker was replaced with a ground breaker, or vice versa. Pool lights are sealed units. The light and its power cord come as a single unit. To replace a pool light, the main circuit breaker at the swimming pool sub-panel is turned off. The wires to the existing light are disconnected (unscrewed) from the circuit breaker. A lead is tied to the end of the wire. The light fixture is removed from the pool opening, and the wire is pulled through the existing conduit from the pool side. When the old fixture and wiring unit has been removed, the lead is removed from the end of the old unit’s wire, tied to the wiring of the new light, and drawn back through the conduit to the circuit breaker box. The new light is screwed into the fixture, and then energized by connecting the wires back into the existing circuit breaker. The point of connection of the light to the circuit breaker is the “load side” of the circuit. The experts who testified in this proceeding were all competent and qualified in their fields, and had served in leadership positions with the CILB (Mr. Weller, Mr. Del Vecchio, and Mr. Lenois), the Electrical Contracting Licensing Board (Mr. Tibbs), or the Florida Swimming Pool Association (Mr. Garner and Mr. Pruette). However, despite the relative simplicity of the statutes at issue, their opinions as to the allowable scope of work under a swimming pool contractor license were at odds. Respondent acknowledged, and the evidence in this case establishes, that electrical work associated with new pool construction is a task that is within the scope of work of an electrical contractor. Initial construction involves substantial work in bringing power from the main residential panel to the new pool panel, installing a junction box and circuit breakers, installing the wiring, and performing other electrical work of significantly greater complexity than that involved in the installation of equipment into a pre-constructed electrical system, which involves only the disconnect and reconnect of wires to the load side of a circuit breaker. As discussed by Mr. Lenois, a pool contractor can contract for the entire pool, but cannot self-perform the electrical components pursuant to section 489.113. As to the replacement of existing equipment, Petitioner’s experts testified that pool light fixtures differ from other pool-related equipment, e.g., pool pumps, in that the light fixtures have direct contact with the water, whereas other components do not. Lights are changed out in a submerged condition, which makes them extremely dangerous. As stated by Mr. Weller, “the whole area of electricity around pools gets complicated, between the bonding, the grounding, and all the other stuff.” It was Mr. Weller’s opinion that, although pool contractors can contract for pool light replacement, they cannot self-perform the work. Rather, the electrical work involved in replacing pool light fixtures should be subcontracted to an electrical contractor because “you can make mistakes in plumbing, and you can make mistakes in other areas, but with electricity, it's pretty non-forgiving, especially if you're around water.” Mr. Lenois distinguished pool lights, which he characterized as accessories since all pools do not have them, from pool equipment, which includes pumps and filters, heaters, specialty filters, and salt generators, which are mounted at the pump and filter area. Respondent’s experts were uniform in their opinions that the act of disconnecting and reconnecting pool lights, as well as other pool equipment, at the load side of a breaker does not constitute electrical contracting. Mr. Pruette testified that disconnecting and connecting a pool light at a circuit breaker is not a difficult or complex task, and can be easily performed with a little training. Mr. Del Vecchio testified that the disconnection and connection of pool lights at the circuit breaker is no different than that performed by a plumber in replacing a hot water heater, or an air-conditioning contractor in replacing a piece of air-conditioning equipment. Almost all of the experts either replaced pool lights as part of their routine scope of work or knew of pool contractors who did so, a practice that appears to be commonplace. Furthermore, several of the witnesses worked in areas of the state in which county building officials did not require permits, electrical or otherwise, for the replacement of pool lights, though the evidence in that regard was generally hearsay. Mr. Lenois, who testified on Petitioner’s behalf, stated his opinion that reasonable people could differ as to the meaning of the statutory language placing the “installation, repair, or replacement of existing equipment” within the scope of work of a pool/spa contractor. The issue of the extent to which electrical work is subsumed within the statutory scope of work of a pool/spa contractor of “installation, repair, or replacement of existing equipment” has been the topic of considerable discussion in the industry. In that regard, the Florida Pool and Spa Association has filed a Petition to Initiate Rulemaking with the CILB seeking, among other things, to “clarify[] the scope of a certified pool contractor’s license to include the installation, repair, and replacement of pool equipment, up to and including the electrical connection on the demand side of the power source.” There was no evidence as to the disposition of the petition. Respondent argued that Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-16.001(9), which establishes that five percent of the written certification exam for commercial pool/spa contractors is to cover “electrical work,” is evidence that electrical work is within the scope of work for a pool contractor. Electrical work associated with pool construction includes grounding for the pool shell itself. Thus, a degree of knowledge of basic electrical work and codes would be warranted, regardless of whether equipment electrical connections are within the scope of work for a pool/spa contractor. The parties introduced a series of DBPR-approved course outlines and instructor applications for a three-hour class, sponsored by the Florida Pool and Spa Association, entitled “Basic Electricity and the NEC [National Electric Code] for Swimming Pools,” and a one-hour class, sponsored by the Florida Pool and Spa Association, entitled “Basic Electrical Requirements for Pools.” The course outline prepared by the Florida Pool and Spa Association for each of the approved courses provides, in bold font, that: Instructor is aware that electrical work does not fall within the scope of work of licensed pool/spa contractors. No instruction on how to perform electrical work will take place. Course will provide much needed understanding of the basics of electricity as well as those aspects of the NEC as they pertain to pools and spas. Instructor will also emphasize the importance of using a licensed electrical contractor to perform required work.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count One; and sections 455.227(1)(o) and 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Two, but only as that count pertains to the replacement of pool lights. It is further recommended that: Respondent be subject to a fine of $1,000 for a first violation of section 489.129(1)(o); Respondent be subject to a fine of $4,000, and that Respondent’s commercial pool/spa contractor licenses be subject to a period of probation for two years for a first violation of section 455.227(1)(o) and section 489.129(1)(c); and Respondent be required to complete an approved, live seven-hour continuing education course, in addition to any otherwise required continuing education, with an emphasis on chapter 489 and the rules enacted pursuant thereto. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the following facts were found: At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent held two active contractor's licenses issued by the State of Florida, RP 0033354 and CP 015029. Respondent's current address is 1316 Hoffner Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32809. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent owned the firm Family Pools and did business as a pool contractor under that name. At no time did Respondent ever qualify his firm, under whose name he did business, with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). On some date not specified, in June, 1980, Alphonse J. and Pauline L. Rodier contracted with Family Pools to build a pool at their residence at 601 Michigan Avenue, Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida for a price of 6,700. The contract was signed by Respondent for Family Pools. The pool price was to include a screened enclosure and deck, and the entire package was to be completed by July 4, 1980. The pool was paid for by two checks from Coast Federal Sayings and Loan Association in Sarasota from the proceeds of a home improvement loan and by a final check in the amount of $900 from the Rodiers, direct, on October 13, 1980. Respondent subcontracted the pool enclosure to Climatrol Screen Company of Enqlewood, Florida, for $2,065 but failed to pay this subcontractor. As a result, on November 26, 1980, Climatrol filed a lien against Rodier's property which was released only when the Rodiers paid an additional $790 which had not been satisfied by the Respondent. Respondent had satisfied part of the debt to Climatrol by relinquishing title to a truck he owned. On July 3, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Elmer J. and Carla T. Taylor, of Bunnell, Florida, to build an above-ground pool on their property for $4,800.00. The pool was to have a one year warranty against defective parts and a 20-year prorated replacement policy. According to the contract, the pool price included the pump, liner, filter, and walls, along with all other parts. The pool was constructed by employees of Family Pools about three or four weeks after the contract was signed. Not long after the pool was completed and filled, Mr. Taylor noticed that the vinyl liner was protruding out beneath the bottom of the metal retaining wall. His calls to Family Pools were never answered by Respondent with whom he asked to talk and repair work on this problem was not accomplished by the Respondent or Family Pools. Mr. Taylor had to do the work himself and Family Pools would not honor the warranty. Respondent offers the completion certificate executed by the Taylors on August 21, 1980,as evidence the pool was installed properly and the Taylors were satisfied. Mr. Taylor indicates he signed that certificate in blank under pressure from Respondent's agent, who cajoled him into doing it on the basis that if he did not, Family Pools could not be paid by the finance company under the installment sales contract. Also, during the period of the one year warranty, the pool pump burned out. Mr. Taylor had to replace that and pay for it himself, as the warranty was not honored. Respondent contends only a 90-day warranty on the pump, but that appears nowhere in the contract, which, in its description of the pool covered by the one year warranty, includes the pump. On August 29, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Janice Conover to build a swimming pool at her home in Venice, Florida for $4,780. The pool was to be completed approximately 30 days after excavation at the site. Between August 29, 1980, and December, 1980, Ms. Conover paid Family Pools a total of $4,741 by checks which were endorsed by "P. Vescera d/b/a Family Pools" or "Pasquale M. Vescera." On October 2, 1980, Respondent pulled a permit No. 7330- N from the Sarasota County Building Department, in his own name, to construct Ms. Conover's pool. In February, 1981, when the pool was only about fifty percent complete, Respondent ceased work on Ms. Conover's pool without giving her any notice or reason therefor. When Respondent stopped work, he had only dug the hole for the pool. The liner had been delivered but was not installed. The braces were there but not affixed, notwithstanding Ms. Conover had paid almost in full for the pool. As a result, she contracted with Richard Thompson, Respondent's former employee, to finish the work Respondent had started because at this point she could not find the Respondent. Thompson installed the brackets, the liner, and the deck. She had to pay extra for the pump, the chemicals, and the sweep--all of which, except for the sweep, she had paid for when she paid Respondent's price. Respondent never returned to complete Ms. Conover's pool. On July 7, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Robert A. and Florence L. Peipher to build a pool at their property in Port Charlotte, Florida, for a price of $6,900. Between July 7 and November 28, 1980, the Peiphers paid Family Pools, by checks, the sum of $6,905. All checks-were endorsed for deposit, "P. Vescera d/b/a Family Pools." The pool price was to include a screened pool enclosure and in September 1980, Family Pools contracted with Climatrol to build the screened enclosure for Peipher's pool for $1,807. Respondent and Family Pools failed to pay Climatrol for the enclosure and as a result, Climatrol filed a lien against the Peipher's property for $1,807 which was satisfied on March 9, 1981, by the Peiphers who paid Climatrol the amount owed. On March 2, 1981, the Peiphers filed a complaint against Respondent with the Contractor License Division of the Charlotte County Building Department because of Respondent's failure to pay Climatrol and the resultant cost to them. As a result of this complaint and the subsequent investigation into the allegations, the matter was referred to the Charlotte County Building Board which, at its meeting on May 7, 1981, after notice to Respondent, voted to revoke Respondent's permit privileges in Charlotte County until he made restitution to the Peiphers and to notify the State of Respondent's actions requesting state action against his license. Respondent suffered severe financial setbacks just about the time of these incidents. He was hospitalized for a period of five or six weeks and upon his return to his business found that he had been "robbed" of approximately $50,000 worth of fully paid for inventory. When he reported the shortage to the local law enforcement officials, they told him that since there was no evidence of a breaking in, they could do nothing about it. In addition, he could not recover from his insurance company for the same reason. There was no evidence other than Respondent's sworn testimony that there was a shortage or that he reported the loss to either agency. Respondent has been in the pool business in Florida for five years and in New Jersey for 32 years before that. He feels the cause of his problem is the fact that he trusted the people who worked for him who took advantage of him. During the entire period of time he was in business in Florida he took no money from the company for his personal use, living instead on income from a mortgage he owned in New Jersey. He subsequently filed for bankruptcy on March 9, 1981. The $15,000 in current accounts receivable he had on the books at that time was utilized in the bankruptcy proceeding to pay creditors. He got-none of it. He is now working in Orlando, Florida, for a pool rehabilitation company owned by his wife and her father. Respondent alleges that on July 15, 1980, he paid Richard Thompson $1,100 to complete work started on several pools, including that of Ms. Conover. Review of the prior findings of fact, however, shows that the contract with Ms. Conover was not entered into until approximately 45 days after Respondent supposedly made this payment to cover the work left undone on her pool. In light of that development, I find his contention completely without merit or basis in fact. Respondent admits that people were hurt as a result of his actions and he regrets this. However, he claims these few incidents are insignificant when compared with the over 500 satisfied customers he alleges he has served over the years. Finally, Respondent contends that early in 1980, after being advised that he had passed the test to be a certified pool contractor, he wrote to Petitioner and, after advising how he was registered and doing business, asked if he needed to make any changes in license registration. He did in fact do this and received no reply. He thereafter assumed he was acting correctly in that regard and that appears to be a justified assumption.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license as a contractor be suspended for two years and that he be assessed an administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 16th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Pasquale M. Vescera 1316 Hoffner Avenue Orlando, Florida 32809 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 At all times material hereto, Respondent, John R. Misiak, was a registered pool contractor, having been Issued license No. RP0033942. Respondent acted as the qualifying agent for Pool Masters, Inc., and also sewed as president of that company. On or about August 21, 1979, Respondent, on behalf of Pool Masters, Inc. , contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Rolf Schneider to construct a pool at the contract price of $9,400 at their residence at 4253 Sugar Pine Drive, Boca Raton, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of that contract, Pool Masters, Inc., guaranteed completion of the pool within eight weeks from the date of issuance of a building permit. On August 23, 1979, the Schneiders paid Pool Masters, Inc., a down payment of $948 On September 23, 1979, Respondent obtained a building permit for the pool and commenced construction. Thereafter, the Schneiders made two additional equal payments to Pool Masters, Inc., of $2,820 on October, 30, 1979, and November 4, 1979, respectively. After receipt of these payments, a remaining unpaid balance on the contract of $2,892 resulted. Work progressed on schedule through November 4, 1979, when Pool Masters, Inc., applied "shot crete" to the pool, and the Schneiders made their last payments of $2,820 as indicated above. Thereafter, work did not progress according to schedule, and the Schneiders became concerned about completion of their pool. There ensued a series of correspondence no conversations between the Schneiders, Respondent, and other officers of Pool Masters, Inc., concerning completion of the pool. Actual work on the pool continued through early December of 1979. At some time between December 4 and December 14, 1979, rough plumbing was installed in the pool. The rough plumbing was inspected and approved by the Palm Beach County Building Department on December 14, 1979. Pool Masters, Inc., had experienced financial difficulty as earl as August of 1979. Negotiations between the company and its creditors continued through late 1979 in the company's attempts to remain in business. In late November of 1979, Respondent spoke with Mrs. Schneider and informed her that the company was experiencing financial difficulties and might not be able to complete construction of the pool. On December 12, 1979, an officer of Pool Masters, Inc., spoke with Mr. Schneider, and informed him that the company would not be able to complete construction of the pool and further would be unable to refund their money. Respondent attempted to arrange completion of the Schneider's pool through another company. Under the proposed arrangement, the pool would have completed at the second company's cost, and Pool Masters, Inc., would have contributed $1,000 toward completion. At the time Respondent proposed this arrangement for completion of the pool, it appears from the record that the the pool could have been completed for approximately $2,000 above the original contract price. The Schneiders refused any offer or completion that would have exceeded the original contract price Pool Masters, Inc., was unable to make satisfactory financial arrangements with its creditors. As a result, the company filed a Voluntary Petition Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on January 29, 1980. No work was performed by Pool Masters, Inc., on the job after the period of December 4 through December 14, 1979. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding from which a conclusion can be drawn that any of the monies paid by the Schneider to Pool Masters, Inc., was applied other than in the partial construction of the pool pursuant to the contract. The Schneiders subsequently contracts with another firm for completion of the pool at a cost substantially in excess of the original contract price. The Schneiders also filed a civil suit for damages against Pool Masters, Inc. Respondent, and other corporate officers. In the course or that proceeding, the Schneiders recovered $1,750 from one of the corporate officers.
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not the certified pool contractor's license issued to Respondents Licensee, Edward G. Batter, should be revoked or suspended or the Licensee's right to practice thereunder should be withdrawn based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail as set out in the Administrative Complaint filed herein on August 23, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Edward G. Batter, d/b/a Tropicana Pools, Inc., (Respondent or Licensee) is a certified pool contractor who holds license No. CPC 012906. Respondent was first licensed on July 28, 1978, as qualifier of Tropicana Pools, Inc., which license was temporarily suspended in June, 1979, and remains in an invalid status to this date. By its Administrative Complaint, Petitioner's Executive Director took action to revoke or otherwise suspend the Respondent's rights to practice pursuant to his referenced license. As a licensed pool contractor, Respondent is subject to the Board's rules and regulations. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1.) A special meeting of the Board of Adjustment, Appeals and Examiners for general building contractors for Hillsborough County was held on Thursday, July 19, 1979, for the purpose of hearing certain allegations concerning the demise of Tropicana pools, Inc. Jerry Taylor, Petitioner's field investigator, presented the Hillsborough County Board with the results of an investigation of Respondent and presented several cases wherein funds were diverted after being collected for a specific contract to other projects or for other purposes and that projects for which funds had been collected had either been left unstarted or abandoned at the time Tropicana Pools, Inc., ceased doing business. At that meeting, the Respondent's construction activities were suspended by the Board until restitution or settlement was made and verified by affected parties. The temporary suspension by Hillsborough County became final during August of 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3.) Howard Shaw, Director of Building and Zoning for the City of Tampa, appeared and testified to substantiate the disciplinary action taken against the Respondent by Hillsborough County during the summer of 1979. On June 7, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. James R. Stanton entered into a contract with Respondent to have a pool constructed for a price of $8,182.00. Respondent was paid a 10 percent deposit to commence construction of the Stantons' pool. Respondent absconded with the deposit and never notified the Stantons that their pool would not be built nor did Respondent return their deposit. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5.) On April 19, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Hillary entered into a contract for the construction of a swimming pool for a contract price of $8,130.00. Approximately $5,690.00 or approximately 70 percent of the contract sum was paid on June 18, 1979, and the work ceased on the Hillary project at a completion stage of approximately 40 percent. Respondent abandoned the Hillary project on approximately June 5, 1979. The Hillarys completed their pool at a price of approximately $5,000.00 over and above the contracted price. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6.) On April 30, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Leon Tope entered into a contract for the construction of a swimming pool at their residence for the contract price of $8,050.00. On June 18, 1979, the Topes had tendered to Respondent approximately 70 percent of the contract cost while the Respondent abandoned the construction of the Topes' pool after approximately 40 percent of the work was complete. Respondent abandoned the project on June 18, 1979, and the Topes completed the construction of their pool at a price of approximately $2,000.00 by engaging the services of other contractors in the area. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10, and the testimony of Jim Moran.) Jerry Taylor, Petitioner's field investigator, attended the probable cause hearing during August of 1979 in which the Hillsborough County Board of Examiners suspended the pool license of Respondent. Investigator Taylor briefed the Hillsborough County Board respecting the results of the investigation conducted by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's pool contractor's license No. CPC 012906 be REVOKED. ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1997), by allegedly committing incompetence or misconduct by "poor soil compaction" and by failing to honor the terms of a written warranty.
Findings Of Fact The four-count Administrative Complaint contains factual allegations in 15 numbered paragraphs. Respondent does not dispute paragraphs 1 through 9, 14, and 15. Petitioner is the state agency statutorily charged with regulating pool contracting in the state. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a pool contractor pursuant to license number CP C052509. Respondent's business address is Bazar Pools, Inc., 6214 All America Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32810. On March 6, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Mr. Rex Davidson (the contract). Respondent agreed to construct a residential cantilever deck swimming pool at Davidson's residence located at 2800 Granada Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida (the pool). Mr. Davidson agreed to pay $19,300 for the pool. Respondent completed the pool sometime in April 1998. Mr. Davidson paid the full amount due under the contract. The contract warranted the "pool structure" for the time that Mr. Davidson owned the pool. Sometime in July of 2000, a crack emerged around the top edge of the pool above the tiles that lined the upper edge of the pool. As the crack worsened, the tiles began to fall off the pool. Respondent did not repair the crack and tiles. Mr. Davidson paid approximately $7,025 to a company identified in the record as Blue Diamond to repair the crack and tile. The contract did not include Respondent's license number. Respondent did not obtain a certificate of authority to do business as Bazar Pools, Inc., at the time he entered into the contract. The contract did not contain a written explanation of consumer rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund. Respondent does not dispute Counts II through IV of the Administrative Complaint charging that the acts described in this paragraph violated Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1997). Respondent disputes the charge in Count I of the Administrative Complaint that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct. Paragraphs 10 through 12 of the Administrative Complaint contain the only factual allegations relevant to the charge of incompetence or misconduct. The disputed factual allegations state: Around July of 2000, the pool developed a crack which extended around the entire perimeter and caused the tiles to fall off because of poor soil compaction. The pool's structure is warranted to remain structurally sound for the period of time that it is owned by the original owner. Mr. Davidson contacted Respondent to get the pool repaired, but Respondent failed to take corrective action. The literal terms of allegations in paragraph 10 of the Administrative Complaint led the trier of fact to expect Petitioner to show that Respondent improperly compacted soil under the deck and thereby allowed the deck to settle. However, Petitioner submitted little, if any, evidence pertaining to how Respondent compacted the soil under the deck before Respondent poured the concrete deck. Respondent obtained the three required county inspection approvals before each step in the construction of the pool. The inspections included an inspection to ensure proper soil grade prior to pouring the pool deck. The inspections ensured that Respondent constructed the pool in accordance with stamped engineering drawings that the county required Respondent to file as a prerequisite for a building permit from the county. The vast majority of the evidence that Petitioner submitted during the hearing was relevant to allegations that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct in two ways. First, Respondent arguably constructed the pool shell and deck as a unitized structure so that the crack and tile problems evolved as the deck settled when underlying soil compacted. Second, Respondent arguably failed to honor the warranty in the contract. As a threshold matter, paragraph 10 in the Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct by poor pool construction. Rather, paragraph 10 alleges only that a crack developed in the pool and tiles fell off because of "poor soil compaction." Nevertheless, the parties spent substantial hearing time submitting evidence relevant to allegations of incompetence and misconduct not specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint. In order to prove that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct by poor pool construction, Petitioner relies on expert opinion to show that Respondent constructed the pool and deck as a unitized structure. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent must have connected the concrete pool shell to the concrete deck either by steel rods, identified in the record as rebar, or by a mechanical bond between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the deck. The expert reasoned that settling of the deck could not have caused the crack in the pool unless the deck and pool shell were connected as a unitized body. Several flaws in the expert opinion offered by Petitioner prevent that testimony from reaching the level of clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner's expert did not relate his opinion to facts in evidence. First, Petitioner's expert never inspected the original construction of the pool. The expert visually inspected only the repaired pool and based his opinion on an hour and a-half inspection of the repaired pool. Counsel for Petitioner illustrated the inherent problem in such testimony when he objected to the testimony of one of Respondent's experts on the grounds that the opinion was based on a post-repair inspection. Counsel for Petitioner explained the problem as follows: Objection. Your Honor, [Respondent's expert] is testifying based on his observations of the pool as repaired by Blue Diamond. He never did - he never has made a personal observation of the pool prior to that repair when it was in the condition attributable to [Respondent's] construction method. So, he's testifying without any particular personal knowledge relative to [Respondent's] conduct. Transcript (TR) at 220-221. When Petitioner's expert inspected the post-repair pool, he did not remove the deck to determine whether the top of the pool shell was, in fact, either connected by steel to the deck or otherwise mechanically bonded to the deck. The only competent and substantial evidence in the record of whether the pool shell and the deck were constructed as a unitized structure came from Respondent. Respondent did not use rebar to connect the pool shell to the pool deck. Respondent stopped the rebar approximately two inches below the top of the pool shell. Respondent used mortar, identified in the record as "mud," to smooth variations or undulations, in the top edge of the pool shell and thereby bring the entire top edge of the pool shell up to "dead level." The maximum variation in the top edge of the pool shell prior to leveling did not exceed 1.25 inches. After the mud dried, Respondent intentionally did not clean the top edge of the pool shell. The dirt and debris remaining on the top edge of the pool shell would normally prevent a mechanical bond between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the concrete deck. The construction technique used by Respondent to construct the pool complies with generally accepted standards for the industry. Respondent has constructed over a thousand pools since 1987 using the same or similar construction techniques. He generally constructs large residential pools in "high-end" neighborhoods that cost customers $40,000 or more, but has constructed some commercial pools. Respondent has never had this problem with his other pools and has never had any previous discipline against his license. The expert opinion offered by Petitioner has another flaw that keeps the testimony from being clear and convincing to the trier of fact. The expert concludes that the deck settled, in relevant part, because "the pool cracked and the tile fell off." In an interrelated ratiocination, the expert concludes that the pool cracked and the tile fell off because the deck settled. Petitioner's expert also concluded that the deck settled because he observed cracks in the deck when he visually inspected the post-repair pool in 2004. He concluded from the cracks he observed in 2004 that settling of the deck in 2000 caused the crack in the pool and the tile problems. Petitioner's expert did not measure the cracks or inspect them to determine if any differential existed in the cracks that would suggest soil compaction under the deck. Petitioner's expert is an expert in pool construction, but is not an expert in pool engineering and design. One of Respondent's expert witnesses is an expert in pool engineering and design. He concluded that the deck did not settle in 2000. The characteristics of the cracks in the post-repair deck in 2004 were consistent with cracks caused by heat expansion and contraction from cooling when joints in the concrete were improperly spaced. The cracks did not exhibit differential settling of the deck. The theory that the crack in the pool and tile problems could not have occurred "but for" the settling of the deck is less than clear and convincing. Faulty installation of the tile by subcontractors is a more likely cause of the problems with the pool and the tile. However, Petitioner neither alleged that Respondent engaged in such acts or that Respondent's license is subject to discipline for the acts of his subcontractors. Finally, the testimony of Petitioner's expert is based on subjective standards while the testimony of Respondent's experts is based on intelligible standards published for the entire industry. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct in constructing the pool based on the expert's personal experience and on the way the expert has constructed pools for many years. Respondent's two experts opined that Respondent complied with written standards of workmanship published by the National Spa and Pool Institute in June 1996 (Workmanship Standards). Aside from whether the pool and deck were joined as a unitized structure, Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent "shot" the pool shell about two inches short of where it should have been, used mud to build up the pool shell, and applied tile over the resulting "cold joint" between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the deck. Petitioner's expert opined that laying tile over a cold joint is incompetence and misconduct in his experience. Respondent's experts disagree. They opined that laying tile over a cold joint is the normal practice in the industry. Petitioner's expert agreed that it is commonplace for contractors to lay tile over a cold joint and that problems arise in only one in fifty jobs. The trier of fact has discussed the competing testimony of the parties' experts to illustrate that the burden of proof is the fulcrum of decision in this case. The applicable burden of proof does not require a preponderance of evidence to show that Respondent constructed the pool in a competent manner. Rather, the trier of fact need only find that the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct in constructing the pool. The remaining allegation is that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct by failing to honor the warranty and repair the pool. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent failed to honor the warranty. Sometime in June 2001, Mr. Davidson verbally complained to Respondent that a crack around the pool above the tile line had developed and that tiles around the top edge of the pool were detaching from the pool. Respondent sent a company representative to the site to evaluate the problem. Respondent also sent a service representative to the site to retrieve some of the tiles. Sometime in July 2001, Mr. Davidson again verbally complained to Respondent about the crack and tiles. By letter dated August 8, 2001, Mr. Davidson notified Respondent that a crack had developed behind the tiles sometime in the summer of 2000. The letter stated that the tiles were falling off of the side of the pool. Respondent offered to provide Mr. Davidson with an estimate of the cost of repair. Mr. Davidson elected to have Blue Diamond make the repairs. The pool structure was warranted for the time that Mr. Davidson owned the pool. It is undisputed that the pool shell was well made and water tight. The parties dispute whether the pool structure included the one or two-inch area between the top of the pool shell and the deck, as well as the deck. The contract defined the pool structure by excluding the deck, equipment, tile, and any item other than the pool shell. The definition in the contract is consistent with that in the Workmanship Standards. Petitioner's attempt to rely on a general definition of the term "structure" in a dictionary is not persuasive when considered in the light of the definitions in the contract and the Workmanship Standards. Alternatively, Petitioner argues that the pool structure included the deck and intervening area because all of the parts were constructed as a unitized structure. Based on previous findings, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that the pool shell and deck were constructed as a unitized structure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Counts II through IV of the Administrative Complaint and not guilty of Count I. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Pellegrini, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 John A. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of John A. Shughart, Jr. 500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 305A Maitland, Florida 32751 Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900 Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tim Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
