Findings Of Fact Melnikoff is the holder of a certified pool contractor's license, having been issued license No. CP C032540. Melnikoff used this license to qualify Ken-Mel Enterprises and license no. CB C029067 was issued to Melnikoff qualifying Ken-Mel Enterprises. Ken-Mel entered into a contract with John and Edythe Milton to construct a residential pool at 7336 Pineville Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. Melnikoff applied for a building permit with the City of Jacksonville to construct the pool for the Miltons. His application included a set of plans and a site plan to be approved by the City of Jacksonville. The City of Jacksonville issued a building permit and provided an inspection sign-off card to be placed at the residence where the pool was to be constructed. Melnikoff and Ken-Mel constructed the pool and were paid in full. Melnikoff failed to request or obtain any inspections of the pool construction. This is a violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code, Section 320.504. The pool is constructed in such a way that it is flawed, deficient and hazardous. Specifically, the water slide is hooked to a potable water system and to the hot water, which is both a serious code violation and a serious and hazardous condition. The water slide is positioned improperly and attached incorrectly, such that there is a danger of injury and this is a hazardous condition. The marcite is very rough and has started to peel away from the gunnite. The marcite is stained from the finish of the pool deck. The slurry from the gunnite and pool deck is buried near the pool and is improperly disposed of. Persons are mildly shocked when touching the railing in the pool, indicating that the pool is not properly bonded, which is a hazardous condition. The pool is not level or symmetrical and there are many imperfections in the continuous curve of the wall. Steel reinforcing bars are actually protruding through the concrete near the top of the pool. Building Code requires that there be a minimum coverage of 1 1/2" of concrete. The ceramic tile is falling off the wall and it is a very poor ceramic tile job. The expansion joints are improperly placed. The main drain cover has not been fastened down, which is a very dangerous situation and a code violation. There is no means or plan for discharging water from the pool, in violation of code. Part of the deck drain is under the slab of the Milton's house which is a serious problem. The pool is deeper than the plans indicated, in violation of the building code. The pool deck is very rough in places, does not drain away from the pool, and is cracked from improper compaction and improper placement of expansion materials. All of these defects and hazardous conditions establish that Melnikoff was grossly negligent and incompetent in the construction of this pool.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order finding Steve A. Melnikoff guilty of the violations charged and revoking Melnikoff's license as a certified pool contractor. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 29th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-0567 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3-5(3); 6(4); 7(5); and 8 & 9 (6) COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Attorney at Law 1343 E. Tennessee St. Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Steven A. Melnikoff 710 Rosedale Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a pool contractor should be disciplined and, if so, what penalty to recommend.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto John A. Bennett, Respondent, was licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a residential pool contractor, having been issued license number RP 0033592. He is the qualifying contractor for Quality Pools and Products, Inc., 2912 Forest Wood Drive, Seffner, Florida 33584 (Exhibit 2). On or about January 25, 1988, Evelyn L. Dittmer and James W. Dittmer entered into a contract with Quality Aquatech Pools & Spas (Quality Pools), 1500 N. Parsons Avenue, Brandon, Florida, to replace the liner and repair the bottom of the pool (Exhibit 5). This contract was signed by the Dittmers and Andy Priess, presumably the foreman of Quality Pools. The Dittmers never met Respondent, but they "understood" he owned the pool company. Printed on the bottom of Exhibit 1 is Respondent's state registration number. Employees of Quality Pools arrived on the site and removed the old liner. At this time, the bottom of the pool was in bad shape, but the workers attempted to replace the liner without repairing the bottom of the pool. They were stopped from replacing the liner and departed as they had brought no equipment with which to repair the bottom. Workers returned for the next several days to attempt to repair the bottom of the pool. Due to excessive ground water entering the pool, this task was onerous. The initial contract provided that if it became necessary to establish well points to keep excess water out of the pool, an additional fee of $200 would be required. The Dittmers paid this fee, but well points were not established. An addendum to the contract was prepared for additional work needed to get the bottom of the pool back in shape (Exhibit 1) and was signed by John A. Bennett. This provided for an additional payment of $600, but was not accepted or signed by the Dittmers. The new liner was ultimately installed, but was torn in the process and the unnatural hole in the bottom of the pool was not repaired. Although the Dittmers had paid Quality Pools the full contract price of $2700, which included a $200 charge for installing well points, the work was never satisfactorily completed, and Quality Pools failed to perform the work for which they had contracted. The project was finally abandoned by Quality Pools, and two of the pumps used to dewater the pool were left on the site. At no time did anyone from Quality Pools obtain a permit from Sarasota County where this work was done, and Quality Pools was not licensed to work in Sarasota County (Exhibit 3). After it became evident Quality Pools would not complete the repairs for which they had contracted, the Dittmers hired another contractor to whom they paid an additional $2945 to restore the pool to an operating condition (Exhibit 7).
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges against John A. Bennett arising out of the contract between the Dittmers and Quality Aquatech Pools & Spas be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4839 Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted with the exception of findings 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 which are rejected for the reason that the evidence submitted does not show Respondent to be the owner or qualifying contractor of Quality Aquatech Pools and Spas with whom the Dittmers contracted. Findings of fact cannot be founded in uncorroborated hearsay evidence not admissible over objection in civil proceedings. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea Bateman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael S. Edenfield, Esquire 206 E. Mason Street Brandon, FL 33511 John A. Bennett 1500 Parsons Avenue Brandon, FL 33511 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a variance from some of the requirements of Rule 10D-5.097, Florida Administrative Code, regarding public swimming pools. At the hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and offered exhibits. Following the hearing a transcript was filed on March 3, 1989, and the parties were allowed until March 23, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner submitted an application for a swimming pool operating permit to the Respondent. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's request for an operating permit, whereupon the Petitioner requested a variance from the Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board. The Board recommended favorable action on the request for variance, but by letter of July 29, 1988, the Petitioner was advised that the Respondent intended to deny the request for variance. The Petitioner's request for formal hearing followed. The Petitioner operates a public swimming pool in Grassy Key, Florida. The Petitioner has never obtained a permit to operate the pool from the Respondent. The floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool are covered with glazed tile. There is no evidence that the glazed tile on the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool is anything other than ordinary glazed tile. The coefficient of friction for wet glazed tile is normally between .2 and .25. Approximately twenty-one percent of the surfaces of the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool consists of grout. The grout is located between the tiles. The top surface of the grout is lower than the top surface of the tiles. The tiles covering the vast majority of the floor and walls of Petitioner's pool are medium blue to dark blue and black in color. Specifically, the tiles are not white or light pastel in color. The tiles covering the vast majority of the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool reflect less light than would be reflected if they were white or light pastel in color. The more light present in a pool, the greater the ability to detect objects in the pool. A decrease in the amount of light in a pool increases the risk of objects in the pool not being detected. Light colors in pools also facilitate the ability to maintain proper sanitation. An epoxy coating could be placed on the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool for approximately $1,500.00. Such a coating would improve the safety of the pool by making the pool surfaces more slip resistant. By reason of the glazed tile surface, the Petitioner's pool is a safety hazard to the public. It is not difficult to see people on the bottom of the Petitioner's pool during day or night operation, even though the pool is dark in color and does not have the characteristic of reflecting, rather than absorbing light. Objects on the bottom of the pool are visible from the pool deck. The color of the pool does not appear to be a significant safety hazard. The water clarity in Petitioner's pool is well above average. The color of the pool does not appear to cause any depth perception different from the depth perception problems inherent in any pool of water. Department inspection reports for the period 1981 through 1988 reveal no problems with cleaning the pool, reveal no findings of algae at all, and indicate that the operator of the pool has done a good job of maintaining the pool. The pool has been in continuous operation for over eight years and there have not been any accidents resulting from use of the pool.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that that Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order in this case denying the Petitioner a variance from the "slip resistant" surface requirement of Rule 10D- 5.097(1), Florida Administrative Code, and granting the Petitioner a variance from the requirement of that rule that the pool floor and walls be "white or light pastel in color." DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4561 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. The Petitioner's expert testimony regarding the coefficient of friction of the tiles in question is not persuasive and has not been used as a basis for fact-finding in this case. The measurements made by the Petitioner's expert deviate dramatically from the measurements one would expect. There is no persuasive record basis to explain the deviation. The proffered suggestion that the amount of grout affected the measurements is not persuasive, because it is unlikely that the testing equipment came in contact with the grout, inasmuch as the surface of the grout is typically below the surface of the tiles. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. (See discussion of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, above.) Paragraph 6: First clause (through the word "tiles") is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 7 through 20: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 9: Accepted in substance, but with numerous subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 10: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Second sentence rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: Rejected as not completely accurate; the tiles in the subject pool reflect less light than is reflected by a white or pastel colored pool. Paragraph 14: Rejected as irrelevant, because even though the proposed statement is true, algae detection has not been a problem in the subject pool. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: Rejected for same reason as rejection of Paragraph 14. Paragraph 17: Rejected as being somewhat of an over statement. The subject pool is, however, less safe than a pool that complies with all of the applicable rule criteria. Paragraph 18: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Although the Respondent's expert testified to the opinion proposed in this paragraph, I have not made any finding based on that opinion testimony, because the basis for the opinion is essentially unexplained in the record and appears to be more of a "feeling" than a "fact." Further, other evidence in the record indicates that depth perception in swimming pools is affected by a number of variables other than pool color. Paragraph 19: Rejected as irrelevant, as well as for the reasons discussed immediately above. Paragraph 20: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 21 through 23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 25: First sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as unnecessary repetition of previously proposed facts. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Hruska, Esquire Vernis & Bowling, P.A. Post Office Drawer 529 Islamorada, Florida 33036 Morton Laitner, Esquire 401 North West 2nd Avenue Suite 5424 Miami, Florida 33128 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 In 1975 and 1976 John Morris, d/b/a Morris Pool Service, maintained the swimming pool at the Sunland Center in Miami, Florida under a contract with HRS. The contract for the year commencing July 1, 1976 and expiring June 30, 1977 (Exhibit 1) provided generally for Morris to maintain the Sunland Center pool for which he would be paid $520 per month. This contract further provided that a representative of Morris Pool Service check each day except Saturday and Sunday with Ms. O'Donohue, the Director of Training, or her successor. Recreation personnel at Sunland Center hoped to open the pool on Memorial Day; however, an impeller for the pump needed replacement and the pool was inoperative for some six weeks in May and June awaiting this part. During this time petitioner did little or no maintenance and the pool's condition was bad enough for the Superintendent to become involved and request a report from the Programs and Services Director (Exhibit 4). When the impeller did arrive in mid-June, 1977, the pool was in such bad shape it was necessary to drain the pool, scrub, and acid-wash the walls and floor of the pool to remove the accumulated algae and scum. Even a colony of frogs had taken up residence in the pool during this period. As a result of additional delays the next hoped-for opening date of July 4 was also missed. The pool was finally ready for operation and was opened the week following July 4, 1977. Although opened the water in the pool was not properly maintained by cleaning and chlorinating. In the latter part of July the gas chlorinator became inoperative and the pool's condition deteriorated as no chlorine was being added to the water. Under the contract Petitioner was to provide materials necessary to keep the pool water in a balanced condition. This contract expired on June 30, 1977. Nevertheless, Petitioner purported to continue working under the expired contract, pending the issuance of a new contract for 1977-1978. While the gas chlorinator was inoperative Petitioner did not hand-feed chlorine to the pool to maintain the proper chlorine level and to keep algae from growing. By early August, 1977, the pool had become so bad the supervisory personnel at Sunland Center called the Dade County Health Department to inspect the pool. A report of that inspection showing the pool unfit for use was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. Following the Superintendent's inquiry to Ms. Titus about the condition of the pool in June, 1977, she contacted Petitioner, who told her the pool would he hack in operation as soon as the impeller was received. Ms. Titus was the successor to Ms. O'Donohue and she told Petitioner to keep her advised regarding the status of the pool. Although the contract (Exhibit 1) required Petitioner to report to Ms. Titus daily (except Saturday and Sunday) she did not see him again, nor did she receive any report that he came to her office. Petitioner contends that he attempted to report to Ms. Titus but was unable to find her in her office and after a few attempts stopped trying. Ms. Titus and her assistant were both equipped with beepers and could be contacted any time of day by their office if they were out of the office. Following the Health Department's inspection on August 9, 1977, the pool was closed for several days, then reopened around mid-August after the chlorinator was repaired. When the pool was reopened in August its condition was barely satisfactory. Shortly after Labor Day the pool was again closed and remained closed throughout the balance of 1977. By October, the Sunland Center officials decided they should notify Petitioner that his contract would not be renewed for the 1977-1978 year and a letter dated October 27, 1977 (Exhibit 2) was forwarded to him by registered mail. This letter was mailed to an old address for Petitioner, was returned to the sender and remailed to the proper address. As a result, the letter was not received by Petitioner until December 14 or 15, 1977. Petitioner submitted bills to Respondent for services for the period July 1, 1977 through December 15, 1977, the approximate date he received Exhibit 2. Following August 10, 1977 some of Respondent's employees in the maintenance department saw Petitioner in the cafeteria at Sunland Center and on the premises, but none of them reported seeing Petitioner do any work on the pool. Petitioner contends he worked on the pool on a daily basis, however, the condition of the pool casts serious doubts on this testimony.
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 Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: At all times material to these proceedings Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified pool contractor, licensed No. CP C025535 and registered pool contractor, License No. RP 0041301. On June 7, 1983, Respondent entered into a Contract (Contract) with Edward and Maureen Kerstein (Kersteins) of 283 Islander Lane, Hudson, Florida, under which a pool was to be constructed on the Kersteins' property for a contract price of $7,777.00. The Contract was later amended by a letter, signed by Respondent and dated July 15, 1983, providing a penalty of $50.00 per day to be deducted from the balance due on the contract price if Respondent failed to complete the pool by July 23, 1983. Respondent obtained building permit No. 34342 on June 15, 1983, in the name of Crystal Clear Pool for the construction of the Kersteins' pool from the Pasco County Building Division. The pool steel inspection was called for and approved on July 8, 1983 and the pool bonding inspection was called for and approved on July 18, 1983. No other inspections were called for by the Respondent and the Respondent did not request an extension of time on the building permit. Therefore, on January 18, 1984, as required by the Standard Building Code of Pasco County, the permit lapsed and was invalid. However for reasons that are not clear in the record Vern Rossky, Building Inspector, Pasco County Building Division, made a final inspection of the Kersteins' pool (Permit No. 34342) on June 28, 1984 and approved the pool. Ordinarily the contractor would call for the final inspection or if the permit had lapsed or was invalid then the Pasco County Building Division would contact the contractor in order to finalize the permit. However, the record is clear that Respondent's intent was to leave the permit open due to the problems with completing the pool and satisfying the Kersteins. Although problems with the pool still existed, the pool was substantially completed in August, 1983 and the Kersteins used the pool in late summer 1983 (August) and the summer of 1984. The pool was operational in August of 1983. The respondent has received $7,055.05 for his work on the construction of the pool under the Contract with the Kersteins. While the Contract did not specify which side yard Respondent was to have access through for construction of the pool, the testimony of both the Respondent and the Kersteins was that it was the west side yard. However, the record reflects that the Kersteins gave either an expressed or implied approval for the use of the east side yard. All of the shrubbery, with the exception of the shrubbery that was part of the Contract, has been properly replaced and the clothesline has been replaced. The evidence was insufficient to show that the cracks which occurred in the house some 3-6 months after the pool construction was caused by the equipment being brought in on the east side of the house. Although Edward Kerstein's testimony was that an expert had not looked at the damage caused by the alleged water seepage around the electrical conduit pipe installed by the Respondent, his testimony that he had identified the Respondent's failure to caulk around the conduit pipe as the reason for the water seepage which resulted in damage to the carpet and speakers went unrebutted and was credible. However, Respondent was not made aware of this problem until the summer of 1984, almost a year later. The record is clear on the following: (a) that the tile placed around the top edge of the pool by Respondent was defective; (b) that there were several acceptable methods of replacing the defective tile; (c) that there were differences of opinion as to which method should be used in this situation; (d) that the reglazing over the existing tile was not an acceptable method; (e) that the pool would have to be drained to replace the defective tile; (f) that the Kersteins did not want to tile over the existing defective tile; (g) that the Respondent and Drew Tile Supply Company (Drew), the supplier of the defective tile, agreed on the method of cutting the tile away from the bull nose cap and replacing just the tile and based on this agreement; Drew delivered a check to Respondent in the sum of $823.75 ($700 for labor and $123.75 for tile) made payable to Crystal Clear Pools and Phil Klein, the subcontractor who had installed the defective tile; (h) that the Respondent, as President of Crystal Clear Pools assigned Crystal Clear Pools' interest in the check to Phil Klein provided the work on the defective tile in the Kersteins' pool commenced no later than February 1, 1984; (i) that Phil Klein endorsed and cashed the check with the knowledge of the assignment; and Phil Klein's testimony that even though the assignment was on the check at the time he endorsed and cashed the check the Respondent told him that the money was a partial payment of another job is just not credible; (j) the more credible evidence is that Respondent assigned the check to Phil Klein for labor and tile to replace the defective tile on the Kersteins' pool and there was no intent by Respondent to divert these funds to another job; (k) that the Kersteins' had not agreed to the method of replacing the defective tile which was part of the agreement between the Respondent and Drew; (1) that Drew had agreed that if the method selected was not satisfactory, then Drew would make it right; (m) that the problem with the drain in the pool, the filtering system, the telescoping rod, the damage to the air conditioning controls on the house, the failure to put tile chips on pool steps and the damage to the underground wire, were legitimate problems and it was Respondent's intent to correct all by the time the pool was drained to replace the defective tile; (n) that the Kersteins understood this when they agreed to allow Respondent to wait until the winter of 1984 to correct these problems because they were already using the pool in the latter part of the summer of 1983 and did not want to drain it at that time; (o) that none of these problems had been corrected due to the failure of both the Respondent and Drew to reach an agreement with the Kersteins on how both the defective tile problem and the other problems were to be resolved and; (p) that there had been continuous negotiations between either the Respondent and the Kersteins or Drew and the Kersteins concerning the settlement of this problem.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law cited herein it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding the respondent not guilty of the violations charged in Count I, Count II, and Count III of the Administrative Complaint and that Counts I, Count II and Count III of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 10th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald A. Figurski Post Office Box 786 New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed general contractor and pool contractor. He is employed by Sally Dysart, Inc., and is currently the qualifying contractor for that company. Additionally, Respondent has served as qualifier for ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc. On June 6, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Theresa Pica to construct a swimming pool at her North Lauderdale residence. On June 9, 1981, Respondent obtained a permit from the City of North Lauderdale to construct the Pica pool. The permit indicated that ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc., was the contractor. The contract specified that the pool would measure 16 x 32 x 3 x 6 1/2 feet, with stainless steel walls. The contract allowed "minor variations in dimensions . . ." and provided that, "Dysart is authorized to use its discretion in making changes or additions if the customer is not immediately available." The pool as installed was 8 feet rather than 6 1/2 feet deep, and the walls were of aluminum rather than stainless steel. These changes were not approved by Theresa Pica and she complained to Petitioner regarding these changes and other problems which are not relevant to the charges herein. This was an 18 inch change in pool depth and could not be considered a minor variation in dimensions, nor could the change in materials be considered insignificant. Respondent should have, but did not, obtain the owner's concurrence before substituting the 8 foot aluminum pool for the 6 1/2 foot steel pool, which the contract called for. This installation was also held to be in violation of Broward County Ordinance Section 9-14(b)(9), by the local board having jurisdiction. Respondent was not properly registered as the qualifying agent for Sally Dysart, Inc., at the time of this project. He was registered as the qualifier for Ark beginning in 1977, but his application to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., was not received by Petitioner until November 1981 and not issued until December 1981. A Julius Kaplan was also a qualifier for Sally Dysart, Inc., but his application was not received by Petitioner until October 1981. Sally Dysart, Inc., was therefore not qualified by a licensed pool contractor at the time this company undertook the Pica project. The permit was improperly drawn on Ark Pool Service, Inc., by Respondent since Ark was not a party to the Pica contract. Respondent demonstrated that the administrator for Sally Dysart, Inc., was attempting to secure a qualifier for this company between April and December 1981. Thus, while some effort had been made to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., this had not been accomplished at the time the Pica project was undertaken. Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with James J. Mirrione to install a spa for him at his residence in Boca Raton. The permit was obtained by Respondent on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., on April 23, 1981. As noted above, Respondent was not a qualifier for Sally Dysart until December 1981. No final inspection of the Mirrione installation was ever made. Respondent believed that officer personnel at Sally Dysart, Inc., had arranged for such inspection, but it was either not requested or requested but not performed. On June 25, 1981, Warren Schober contracted with Sally Dysart, Inc., to construct a pool at his Miami residence. He negotiated the contract with a Milton Wolf who he understood to be the sales manager for Sally Dysart, Inc. The project was completed, but Schober encountered problems with a defective light and leaks in the pool. The difficulties were eventually corrected and Schober is now satisfied with the installation. In late August 1981, Milton Wolf agreed to sell Dr. Ronald Scott a swimming pool for $5,970. Scott made an initial payment of $3,970 to Milton Wolf by cashier's check dated September 8, 1981. Scott believed he was dealing with Sally Dysart, Inc., since Wolf held himself out as a representative of that company. Although he had some reservations about making the check payable to Milton Wolf personally, he had contacted a Better Business Bureau to determine that Sally Dysart, Inc., was a reputable company. Further, Wolf was available when he telephoned him at the Sally Dysart, Inc., offices. Sally Dysart, Inc., later disclaimed the Wolf agreement but offered to honor it if Scott would turn over the balance due. However, Scott rejected this offer and it was later withdrawn. He did not receive the pool or return of his initial payment. The evidence did not establish whether or not Sally Dysart, Inc., approved the contract for sale of the pool negotiated by Wolf. However, there was no construction contemplated and therefore no active involvement by Respondent in his capacity as construction supervisor. On July 31, 1981, Milton Wolf, on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Mr. William D. Black for the sale and installation of a swimming pool at the latter's Miami resident. By check dated August 28, 1981, Black made an initial payment of $4,585 to Wolf. Black left the payee portion of the check blank at Wolf's request on the representation that he would use a stamp to supply the Dysart firm name. Wolf later filled in his own name, cashed the check and absconded. Black had no reason to distrust Wolf as he had communicated with Wolf at Sally Dysart, Inc., and had checked on the company through the Better Business Bureau. Wolf held himself out as sales manager and this was not repudiated by Sally Dysart, Inc., until after Wolf absconded. Respondent obtained a permit for the Black project on October 13, 1981, and some of the initial approvals were made. However, by letter dated September 22, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc. (by its president, Sally Dysart), advised Black that the company would attempt to complete the project only if he would pay the balance of all payments due. This letter also disclaimed responsibility for Wolf's representations. In response, Black demanded that Sally Dysart, Inc., honor the contract and proposed that remaining payments be placed in escrow pending satisfactory completion. This proposal was rejected, and Black did not obtain the pool nor was his $4,585 "deposit" returned. Respondent sought to establish that Milton Wolf was not authorized to act on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., but that he was merely present in the Dysart offices as a potential business partner. His contact with customers was purportedly limited to investigation of leads and company business potential. However, the testimony of a former Dysart employee established that Wolf did make sales and brought in cash receipts to the company prior to his defalcation. Therefore, regardless of any private understanding between Sally Dysart, Inc., and Milton Wolf, the latter was holding himself out to the public as a company representative with the knowledge and approval of Sally Dysart, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's contractor licenses for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May 1984.
Findings Of Fact Brian E. Michaels, the Codes Administrator for Putnam County testified that he regulates the building codes in Putnam County and is in charge with the effective administration thereof. He testified that the pertinent regulations and codes relative to the construction of swimming pools in Putnam County are Ordinances 73-6 and 75-4. (See Petitioner's Exhibits number 2, and number 3, received in evidence). Michaels testified that after seeing an advertisement in the Palatka Daily News on august 6, 1975, his office advised Respondent's office on two occasions to apprise him of certain local laws regulating contractors and the business of contracting. When Respondent failed to respond to approximately three phone calls to its office, Michaels advised Respondent by certified letter dated August 28, 1975, that swimming pool contractors desiring to operate in Putnam County must be locally certified even if they hold state registration. He advised Respondent that if he in fact was state certified that he could send a copy of his certificate for Putnam County official files and to discuss with their office procedures for obtaining a certification in Putnam County. He further advised that the county had adopted the standard swimming pool code, 1974 edition, which requires a plot plan as well as a plan approved before a pool permit could be issued. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit number 5). Michaels explained the procedures for complying with the County's certification process which included the filing of an application; taking an exam and receiving a score of at least 70 percent; posting of a $5,000.00 bond; payment of a $50.00 fee which should be included with the application which should also have included a recent photo and the issuance of an occupational license. Additionally, he advised that it was necessary to comply with registration and requirements of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board under Chapter 468; Florida Statutes, within 90 days. Michaels testified that Respondent received his certified letter dated August 28, 1975, the following day. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit number 5). Section 1020 of Ordinance No. 75-6 of the zone ordinances of Putnam County states in pertinent part that building and related permits issued by the chief building official are required in advance of the construction, erection, demolition, moving, destruction, or alteration of any building or structure with a completed evaluation of $1,000.00. (See Petitioner's Exhibit number 6). On May 27, 1975, the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners enacted Putnam County Ordinance no. 75-4, which ordinance adopted by reference the Southern Standard Swimming Pool Code, 1974 edition, which provided for the adoption of a fee schedule and charges for the issuance of permits to "defray the costs of inspections". (See Petitioner's Exhibit number 7). Jerrell Sparks of Crescent City, testified that he contacted Respondent regarding the construction of a swimming pool during the fall of 1975 following his visit to a building show. On October 21, 1975, Sparks entered into a contract with Terry Michaels, a partner of Respondent, Steve Klapach, d/b/a Starfish Pools for a total price of $5,150.00. At the execution of the contract, Sparks paid Respondent $200.00 and agreed to pay an additional $1,300.00 on November 5, 1975. (See Petitioner's Exhibit number 8, received and made a part herein). Sparks testified that Respondent made the financial arrangements with a mortgage broker in Jacksonville and that Respondent was paid $4,650.00. The construction completed by Respondent consisted of the excavation for the pool and delivery of the pool shell. He testified that he obtained a homeowner's permit but that Respondent did not obtain a permit for the installation of the swimming pool. Tom McConnell of Palatka, testified that he contacted the Respondent regarding a $2,000.00 pool kit which he had seen advertised. He testified that Respondent's partner, Tony Michaels, visited his home on October 14, 1975, at which time he executed a contract for the installation of a pool for a total price of $5,714.00. When the contract was executed, McConnell secured it by an advance payment of $500.00 and he thereafter was never able to contact Respondent. (See Petitioner's Exhibit number 9, received in evidence and made a part hereof). Kenneth L. Rue of Ormond Beach contacted the Respondent based on an ad which appeared in the Sunday supplement of the Daytona Beach News Paper. On August 21, 1975, Rue entered into a contract with Respondent's partner, Tony Michaels and a Mr. Charles Van Dent for the construction of a pool for the total price of $5,200.00. He paid Respondent $500.00 when the contract was executed and paid an additional $4,200.00 when the pool was delivered. He testified that Respondent removed shrubbery and palm trees where the pool was to be positioned and thereafter the excavation and the necessary site preparation was readied. Thereafter the pool was positioned and the plumbing and electrical-fixtures were connected. He testified that the pool did not comply with the specifications as called for in the contract which by its term called for a kidney shaped pool with dimensions of 27' X 13' and a depth of a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 feet. He testified that the actual dimensions of the pool installed was 25' x 11' and the depth ranged from 26" to 47". He testified that after the pool was installed it began leaking around the "circulation area" and that when he contacted the Respondent, the pool was removed and Respondent agreed to install any size pool that he desired. The pool called for in the contract was a fiberglass pool however Respondent opted for the installation of a vinyl liner pool. On November 11, 1975, Respondent sent two employees out to make forms for the construction of the pool but since that time, he has had no further contact with Respondent despite repeated attempts. He paid Respondent approximately $4,700.00 of the $5,200.00 contract price and paid another contractor an additional $2,300.00 to complete construction of the swimming pool. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit number 10) Brian Michaels was recalled and testified that Respondent never was issued building permits for the McConnell or Sparks projects. The Board introduced into evidence documents showing that Respondent, Steve A. Klapach, RP22049 was registered with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as an active swimming pool contractor during 1975 in the period September, 1975 to December, 1975. (See Petitioner's Exhibit number 1).
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.
