Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that Petitioner's Exhibit number 1, which is the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board official records as they relate to Millard P. Hill, Jr., should be received into evidence. The parties noted further that there is little dispute as to facts, however, the Respondent contends that there is no diversion of funds based on the facts of this case. On June 10, Respondent advised Petitioner that he wished to qualify Master Pools, a corporation which he had applied to Petitioner to qualify as the name under which his pool contracting would be done to reflect the name H. B. Patten, Inc. as the name under which said contracting would be done. Petitioner changed its records to show this change. On July 12, Respondent entered into a contract with Manuel and Anna Bueno for a pool to be built at 6960 Northwest 4th Place, Margate, Florida, for a sum of $5,665. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 received into evidence and made a part hereof by reference. Anna Bueno testified that a hole was dug and tar paper and steel bars were erected in the hole and the work was abandoned thereafter. Prior to abandonment, the Bueno's paid approximately $4,100 to Patten Pools. To complete the construction, the Bueno's used Hallmark Pools to finish the pool which required an additional sum of approximately $5,000. As can be seen, this is approximately $3,300 over and above the contract price. The evidence also reveals that Patten Pools, Inc., through Millard P. Hill, applied for and obtained a permit for the construction of the pool for the Bueno's on August 5. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 3, received into evidence and made a part hereof by reference. On April 24, Mr. and Mrs. Edward Eskie entered a contract with Respondent for the erection of a swimming pool on their property located at 1525 Southeast 14th Court, Deerfield Beach, Florida for $6,786.00. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 4 received in evidence and made a part hereof by reference. Mr. Eskie testified that the excavation for the pool began on May 20, and on June 2 gunite services were complete. On July 9, he received a letter from Crockett- Bradley, Inc. a gunite subcontractor, indicating that it was filing a lien for $1,312 against the Eskie's property for services performed. The building permit for the Eskie project was obtained by Respondent on June 10. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 7 incorporated herein by reference. Edward Eskie paid Respondent approximately $4,778 and $1,312 was paid to Crockett-Bradley, Inc. to satisfy the lien which was placed against their property. The Eskie's completed their pool by payment of an amount in excess of $4,000 to another pool contracting firm. Prior to completing the pool and after the Respondent abandoned the project, Edward Eskie made numerous attempts to contract Respondent by phone to no avail. On June 27, Respondent entered a contract with Orlando Gonzalez for a pool to be built at his residence located at 353 Northwest 22nd Street, Boca Raton, Florida for $9,000.00. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 8 which was received and made a part hereof by reference. Orlando Gonzalez paid Respondent $3,600 through his bank toward the contract price. For that payment, Respondent dug a hole and the project was abandoned. After work was abandoned, Gonzalez made repeated attempts to contact Respondent to no avail. To complete the project, he paid another contractor approximately $6,000. On April 18, Respondent entered into a contract with Howard and Sheila Siclari for a pool to be built at their home located at 7812 Northwest 67th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida, for the sum of $4,280. To commence the construction, Respondent obtained a building permit on June 18, 1975. See Petitioner's Exhibits number 9 and number 10 received in evidence and made a part hereof by reference. The Siclari's paid Respondent $3,456.75. Thereafter they completed the work which cost them an additional $2,500 and they did most of the work themselves. James T. Anglen, a pool salesman for Patten Pools testified that he was initially employed by Master Pools until June, 1975. A reference to Petitioner's Exhibit number 1 indicates that Master Pools registered as Brian Sales Corporation as the first entity that Respondent registered with Petitioner on January 1, 1974. He was a superintendent of Patten Pools in June, 1975 when he commenced employment with Patten. He acknowledged that he received money from the Bueno's which was transmitted to Patten Pools. He also acknowledged that the Bueno's were probably hurt most of all the complaining parties in this case. Respondent discovered that its cash flow was short approximately $40,000 to $50,000 and that that amount in checks were floating with insufficient funds to cover them. He commenced efforts to try to straighten out the firms cash flow and that for a while the bank worked along with him. Anglen also acknowledged the abandonment of the Gonzalez project. He further acknowledged that monies received from projects were used to cover deficiencies on other projects to continue Respondent's operations.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the extensive factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Revised Joint Prehearing Stipulation4: The "Investigator's Memo" referred to in the parties' Revised Joint Prehearing Stipulation was a memorandum from Jack Beamish, an investigator with Respondent, to Bruce Campbell, an attorney with Respondent. It was dated June 21, 2004, and read as follows: On June 21, 2004 I spoke on the telephone with Neal Shniderman . . . , counsel for The Pool People. He said that James Pohl, PE (Case No. 03-0045) has retired and is in the process of moving to North Carolina. Shniderman said, "Well over a year ago the company changed its way of operating. Jim Pohl was coming in and reviewing every plan and signing them. Now that he is retired, the company has a new engineer who is signing and sealing and making sure everything is up to snuff. I'm worried about them signing the affidavit because I don't want them to acknowledge that they were engaged in an unlawful act. I don't want to let my client admit to violating the law in the past, particularly where we don't believe they violated the law, and how they will act in the future. I don't understand where my client is doing anything wrong. It is not holding itself out to be an engineering firm; it's a pool contracting firm. It contracts with an engineer to provide engineering services." I cited Chapter 471.023 and told Mr. Shniderman that it appears that the firm is directly contracting to provide pool construction and engineering services, and that in order to do that the simple answer would be to apply for a certificate of authorization. (TPP [The Pool People] is then subcontracting the engineering work out.) He stated that he thought it to be lawful for TPP to practice business as it currently is. I suggested that he talk to you to further discuss his position. I said that I would have you call him.[5] The November 18, 2004, "probable cause panel proceeding" referred to in the parties' Revised Joint Prehearing Stipulation opened with Mr. Campbell, addressing the following comments to the probable cause panel6: This investigation is predicated on a complaint filed on April 9th 2004 by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers alleging that The Pool People, Inc., was practicing as an engineering firm without holding a Certificate of Authorization issued by the Florida Board of Professional Engineering. The Pool People, Inc., which is a certified contracting business licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board, does not have and has never had a Certificate of Authorization to provide engineering services in the State of Florida. A notice to cease and desist the unlicensed practice of engineering was issued to The Pool, Inc., on May 24th, 2004. On . . . August 2nd, 2004 the Florida Board of Professional Engineer[s] obtained from the Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning and Building Department certified copies of five permit applications and pool plans submitted by The Pool People, Inc., during the period of June and July 2004. The permit applications were submitted by Daniel Lowe, a certified pool contractor and qualifier for The Pool People, Inc., and the plans were signed and sealed by Ming Z. Huang, P. [E]. On information and belief The Pool People, Inc., employed Mr. Huang to provide engineering services, evidenced by the five sets of pool plans, included with [The Pool People's] contracts with the property owners. By filing engineering plans signed and sealed by a professional engineer employed by [T]he [Pool People] while [T]he [Pool People] did not have a Certificate of Authorization, and by providing engineering services directly to the customer while [T]he [Pool People] does not have a Certificate of Authorization, [T]he [Pool People] has therefore practiced engineering without being duly licensed.[7] The following are other pertinent excerpts from the transcript of the November 18, 2004, "probable cause panel proceeding": The [Panel] Chairman: Well, Bruce, the reason I raised the question [of whether the county knew about the cease and desist order] was that in reading their attorney's comments I am interpreting their attorney as stating, one, he doesn't think they need a CA and, secondly, I interpret that they have no intent in getting a CA. Mr. Campbell: That is exactly why we are bringing this complaint. The Chairman: [That] is why I commented about [why] I think the county needs to know there is a cease and desist so they no longer accept any plans from this organization.[8] * * * The Chairman: True. But if they had knowledge that we had issued the cease and desist order they may in turn turn the drawings right back over to them. Mr. Tomasino[9]: You would shut down every pool contractor in the State of Florida, every one. Mr. Campbell: And part of the thing here is that I think we need to go forward with this case, and it's going to be more or less a test case that, you know, we need to establish those facts before we I think go with the lesser and perhaps ineffective notice to cease and desist. Mr. Tomasino: Well, we have taken positions two different ways in the past, and I have a problem with it because we are not consistent. Certain organizations can hire an engineer and provide a product and it is okay. Certain organizations can do that and it is not okay. And I think we need to clear up the fact who is the engineer supposed to be contracting with to avoid the contractor having the CA, design build. Just about every single one of them the contractor hires the engineer and the architect and that is part of his overall fee for construction. He doesn't have a CA and doesn't intend to get one. This situation in the State of Florida in my opinion could possibly find manufacturers exempt because they're taking various components by other people and putting it together. Mr. Campbell: This is true except for the fact that they're putting it on a site and what they are using the engineer for is to put it on a site, and that engineering - - Mr. Tomasino: But - - Mr. Campbell: - -is site specific and very definitely something for the owner of the property. Mr. Tomasino: No question about that. But so is design build.[10] * * * Mr. Campbell: There may be some requirement of clarification as far as the statute, but the way the statute exists they're entering into a contract to provide engineering services and they don't have a Certificate of Authorization. The Chairman: That is pretty clear, pretty clear in the statute. And I don't know how he is - - the attorney [for The Pool People] now - - how he is interpreting it otherwise. [11] * * * The Chairman: Well, you know, his attorney's reference to 471.023 is pretty correct paraphrasing. I mean, he hasn't restated all of it but, you know, Subsection 2 says for the purpose of this section a Certification of Authorization shall be required for any business organization or other person practicing under a fictitious name, offering engineering services to the public. That is exactly what this outfit is doing that they have to have a CA. Mr. Seckinger[12]: What part of - - I will play the devil's advocate - - what part of engineering services are they offering? Mr. Chairman: The site engineering. Mr. Seckinger: Well, all they are doing is putting a pool in a level ground in the backyard. There is no engineering there. The Chairman: Why is he sealing it? Mr. Sunshine[13]: Yeah. They have an engineer sealing it for them. Mr. Seckinger: That is a good question. The local authorities require it? Mr. Tomasino: Health department probably and probably the building department. The Chairman: But that is offering engineering services without a CA. Mr. Seckinger: If we were talking about enclosed - -pool enclosures would be even more so. Mr. Tomasino: The health department is interested because of recirculating systems and filtration systems et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Seckinger: Okay. I will get off the platform I was on.[14] * * * Mr. Tomasino: I understand what the statute is saying because the Chairman made it very clear. [15] * * * Mr. Seckinger: Mr. Chair, I move that we find probable cause in the case under discussion. The Chairman: The Pool People, Inc. Mr. Seckinger: The Pool People, Inc., unlicensed. The Chairman: Do we have a second? Mr. Tomasino: Second The Chairman: All those in favor say aye. Mr. Tomasino: Aye. Mr. Seckinger: Aye. The Chairman: Aye.[16] * * * The Chairman: I mean, if there was some gray area in the wording of Subsection 2 of 471.023. I don't see there is any gray area. And - - Mr. Campbell: I don't either. As long as that is the statute I think the prosecuting attorney has the responsibility to go forward with it.[17] * * * Mr. Sunshine: Now that we have brought it [the improper use of Mr. Pohl's seal] to their [The Pool People's] attention, they have taken the steps to bring in someone to actually review these things, but they are unwilling it appears to acquire a CA.[18] * * * The Chairman: Mr. Tomasino, since you are on that page you don't have to go back to it, again, this attorney is interpreting that item 2 from 471.023 does not apply because they are not providing engineering services. They're a consumer of them, which - - Mr. Tomasino: They are using services. The Chairman: But they're putting an engineering seal on their drawings. Mr. Sunshine: They charge their client, the home owner. The Chairman: For engineering services. Mr. Tomasino: As a separate item. Mr. Campbell: Not a separate item, I don't think. Mr. Sunshine: It's a lump sum. Incorporated in our services [is] the engineering that is necessary for this project. [Y]ou pay us and we take care of everything. Mr. Tomasino: I guess that is part of my opening comments. What is wrong with someone hiring experts to help them put a package together to sell? Mr. Campbell: You know, that is just too general. I mean, certainly the manufacturer's exemptions is sort of a narrow and specific one and we recognize that. That is where it happens. You have - -you know, this is just a different situation. It is one step over the line. It's not a package that is sold in quite the same terms. It is something that is site specific and that makes the difference. Mr. Tomasino: We need to open up the bag of worms in the aluminum enclosures again, then, because that is not site specific. Mr. Campbell: Well, it has to be at some point. Mr. Tomasino: People who prepare the master plans don't ever see the site. Mr. Sunshine: We have discussed that - - Mr. Tomasino: But we are mixing apples and oranges. The Chairman: But if a screen enclosure company gets an engineer for a very specific job and seals that set of drawing that it [is] this situation, correct? Mr. Campbell: Yes. Mr. Tomasino: So the way out is for that engineer to contract with the home owner? Mr. Sunshine: The company needs to tell them we will build it. You need to acquire an engineer and you need to pay them, not us. The Chairman: Or obtain a CA. Mr. Sunshine: Right. We will give you names of who[m] we would recommend. You go to that engineering firm, you contract with them, you pay them the fee, because otherwise we could [get] hit with unlicensed activity.[19] * * * The Administrative Complaint issued in the Underlying Proceeding contained five counts.20 Each count charged Petitioner with "violat[ing] Section 471.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by practicing engineering without a license." In Count One, it was alleged that, "[o]n or about June 10, 2004, [Petitioner], through its qualifying individual contractor, filed an application for a permit to build a pool for an owner, Vista Builders, at 16326 78th Road North, in Palm Beach County, Florida" and that the "application included 4 pages of engineering plans signed and sealed on June 9, 2004, by Ming Z. Huang, P. E.," whom Petitioner had "employed . . . to provide engineering services included in its contract with Vista Builders." In Count Two, it was alleged that, "[o]n or about July 7, 2004, [Petitioner], through its qualifying individual contractor, filed an application for a permit to build a pool for an owner, Toll Brothers, at 8108 Laurel Ridge Court, in Palm Beach County, Florida" and that the "application included 4 pages of engineering plans signed and sealed on June 23, 2004, by Ming Z. Huang, P. E.," whom Petitioner had "employed . . . to provide engineering services included in its contract with Toll Brothers." In Count Three, it was alleged that, "[o]n or about July 22, 2004, [Petitioner], through its qualifying individual contractor, filed an application for a permit to build a pool for an owner, Jandjel, at 10265 Brookville Lane, Boca Raton, in Palm Beach County, Florida" and that the "application included 4 pages of engineering plans signed and sealed on July 20, 2004, by Ming Z. Huang, P. E.," whom Petitioner had "employed . . . to provide engineering services included in its contract with Jandjel." In Count Four, it was alleged that, "[o]n or about July 26, 2004, [Petitioner], through its qualifying individual contractor, filed an application for a permit to build a pool for an owner, Shelby Homes, at 10681 Oak Meadow Lane, in Palm Beach County, Florida" and that the "application included 4 pages of engineering plans signed and sealed on July 22, 2004, by Ming Z. Huang, P. E.," whom Petitioner had "employed . . . to provide engineering services included in its contract with Shelby Homes." In Count Five, it was alleged that, "[o]n or about June 24, 2004, [Petitioner], through its qualifying individual contractor, filed an application for a permit to build a pool for an owner, Anthony Rycko, at 13761 76th Road North, in Palm Beach County, Florida" and that the "application included 4 pages of engineering plans signed and sealed on June 23, 2004, by Ming Z. Huang, P. E.," whom Petitioner had "employed . . . to provide engineering services included in its contract with Anthony Rycko." With respect to all five counts, Petitioner alleged that: [Petitioner] engaged in the practice of engineering in one or more of the following ways: by filing engineering plans signed and sealed by a professional engineer employed by [Petitioner] while [Petitioner] did not have a Certificate of Authorization as required by Section 471.023, Florida Statutes; by providing engineering services directly to a customer while [Petitioner] d[id] not have a Certificate of Authorization as required by Section 471.023, Florida Statutes. In the "Conclusions of Law" portion of the Recommended Order he issued in DOAH Case No. 05-0382, the undersigned stated the following, among other things: The specific allegations of wrongdoing contained in the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 05-0382 are that The Pool People, in connection with each of the Five Pool Projects, practiced engineering without a certificate of authorization from the FEMC in violation of Section 471.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by engaging "in one or more" of the following activities: by filing engineering plans signed and sealed by a professional engineer [Mr. Huang] employed by Respondent while [it] did not have a Certificate of Authorization as required by Section 471.023, Florida Statutes [hereinafter referred to as "Allegation a."]; by providing engineering services directly to a customer while [it did] not have a Certificate of Authorization as required by Section 471.023, Florida Statutes [hereinafter referred to as "Allegation b."]. It is asserted in Allegation a. that The Pool People was required by Section 471.023, Florida Statutes, to possess a certificate of authorization from the FEMC because it engaged in the practice of engineering through a licensed engineer, Mr. Huang, who was acting as The Pool People's employee when he signed and sealed the engineering plans that were subsequently filed by the Pool People in connection with each of the Five Pool Projects.[21] The FEMC, however, failed to present clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing establishing that there existed an employee- employer relationship between Mr. Huang and The Pool People. Indeed, the record affirmatively establishes that Mr. Huang was not an employee of The Pool People, but rather acted as an independent contractor, free to exercise his professional judgment in a manner that was not subject to the control of The Pool People. See Harper v. Toler, 884 So. 2d 1124, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)("The 'extent of control' . . . has been recognized as the 'most important factor in determining whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee.' Of course, employees and independent contractors both are subject to some control by the person or entity hiring them. The extent of control exercised over the details of the work turns on whether the control is focused on simply the 'result to be obtained' or extends to the 'means to be employed.' A control directed toward means is necessarily more extensive than a control directed toward results. Thus, the mere control of results points to an independent contractor relationship; the control of means points to an employment relationship.")(citations omitted). A corporation, such as The Pool People, that retains FEMC-licensed engineers to provide engineering services on an independent contractor basis is not obligated to obtain a certificate of authorization from the FEMC inasmuch as Section 471.023's certificate of authorization requirement is triggered only where the licensees are acting as "agents,[22] employees, [or] officers" of the corporation. To construe Section 471.023 otherwise would add words to the statute not placed there by the Legislature. This neither the undersigned nor the [Board] may do. See Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1999)("We are not at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature."); PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So. 2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988)("The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another."); Cook v. State, 381 So. 2d 1368, 1369 (Fla. 1980)("According to a longstanding principle of statutory construction, this list should be presumed to be exclusive and any omissions to be deliberate."); Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1976)("[W]here a statute enumerates the things on which it is to operate, or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned."); Chaffee v. Miami Transfer Company, Inc., 288 So. 2d 209, 215 (Fla. 1974)("To say, as the employer would have us do, that in merger cases the true meaning of s 440.15(3)(u) is that disability for purposes of that section is the greater of physical impairment or loss of earning capacity only if there is a loss of earning capacity is to invoke a limitation or to add words to the statute not placed there by the Legislature. This we may not do."); Herrera-Lara v. State, 932 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)("Because the legislature did not include the terms 'temporary tags' or 'temporary license plates' in section 320.26, we must assume the legislature did not intend for section 320.26 to apply to those items."); and Childers v. Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc., 898 So. 2d 973, 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)("Courts must give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning, and is not at liberty to add words that were not placed there by the legislature."). The accusation made in Allegation b. that The Pool People "provid[ed] engineering services directly to a customer" in connection with each of the Five Pool Projects is likewise not supported by clear and convincing record evidence. The record reveals that The Pool People was a direct recipient, not a direct provider, of engineering services. What it contracted to provide "directly to a customer" in each instance was not any engineering service, but rather a newly-constructed residential swimming pool, a contractual obligation its certificate of authority from the CILB authorized it to assume. To fulfill this contractual obligation, it had to have engineering plans signed and sealed by a FEMC-licensed engineer. It needed these plans to apply for the building permit required to commence construction of the pool. The Pool People obtained these engineering plans from a FEMC-licensed independent contractor, not from one of its "agents, employees, [or] officers," and it then used the plans to apply for the required building permit. In doing so, it did not run afoul of any requirement of Section 471.023, Florida Statutes. Because the specific allegations of wrongdoing contained in the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 05-0382 are not supported by clear and convincing evidence, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued License No. CP C029646. At all tines material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifying agent for Pools by Andrews, Inc., and the owner of that company. On August 21, 1986, George Silvers, a building inspector for the Village of Tequesta, saw people working at a pool site with no identification on the truck parked nearby. When he stopped, he discovered a crew installing- plumbing pipes for a swimming pool. When he asked for identification, Roland R. Androy identified himself as an employee of Pools by Andrews, Inc. Although "piping a pool" does not itself require specialized licensure, Silvers asked Androy if he were a licensed contractor, and Androy said that he was not. By way of further identification, Androy produced a personal card which read "Andy's Elite Pools." Silvers "red flagged" the job stopping construction and filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation. Androy was an employee of Pools by Andrews, Inc., for approximately one year in 1974. He returned to Florida and again became an employee of Pools by Andrews, Inc. in February, 1985. During the remainder of that calendar year Androy drew a regular weekly salary from that company, received holiday pay, and drove a company vehicle. Taxes were deducted from his salary check, and the company provided him with health insurance. Androy was a fast worker and frequently finished piping pools early in the day at which time he was given odd jobs to perform for the company such as building shelves in the warehouse. Androy decided that he could make the same amount of money and substantially shorten his work day if he were paid on a piecework basis rather than for an eight hour work day. That way he would also be able to 'moonlight' by using his free time performing maintenance and repair work for swimming pool owners. Respondent agreed to pay Androy on the basis of piecework rather than a 40-hour work week. Since January 1, 1986, Androy appears at Pools by Andrews, Inc., at 6:00 a.m. six days a week at which time he is given a list of pools to plumb that day. All materials and equipment necessary to perform the work are supplied by the Respondent. When Androy finishes, he goes home. Every Friday he gives Respondent a list of pools that he piped that week, and Respondent pays Androy by check. Because Androy wanted to be free to leave when he finishes that day's work, he no longer drives a company truck but rather drives his own truck so he does not have to return the truck before he can go home. Under the new salary arrangement, he is paid by the job and no longer receives a regular weekly salary or holiday pay or health insurance. Further, Respondent has ceased deducting withholding tax and social security taxes from Androy's paycheck. The card which Androy gave to Inspector Silver is a card that he used prior to moving to Florida. He had new cards printed with his Florida address and telephone number. He uses them when persons ask how they can get in touch with him. Respondent had no knowledge of Androy having or using such a card. As a certified pool contractor, Respondent is aware of the requirements for licensure, that is, installation of a swimming pool must be done by a licensed contractor. However, there is no requirement for licensure for that portion of the installation known as piping a pool. Rather, that work can be performed by anyone under the supervision of a licensed contractor. Further, no separate permit is required for that "plumbing" portion of pool installation. All permits for the job in question were obtained by Pools by Andrews, Inc., pursuant to Respondent's state licensure. No other permits were necessary for the job, including the work done for Respondent by Androy. Respondent (like Androy) believes that Androy is an employee of his and not an independent contractor or a subcontractor. There is no intent on Respondent's part to evade he state licensure requirements. Respondent has had no other disciplinary actions filed against him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 29th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4395 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, and 4-6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of tact numbered 2 has been rejected as not being supported by any evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 7, and 10 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5, and 11 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Edward W. Andrews 8300 Resource Drive Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Respondent's pool contracting license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed pool contractor in Panama City, Bay County, Florida, holding license number RP 0053231. Respondent was registered as an individual with the Board. The address given on his pool contractor's license was 3414 Jenks Avenue, Panama City, Florida. National Pools of Panama City, Inc. was not registered or certified as a contractor with the Board. National Pool's address was 3416 Jenks Avenue, Panama City, Florida. No clear and convincing evidence was presented as to whether Respondent had any knowledge of National Pool's unregenerate and incertitude status. On February 16, 1988, Robert D. Hay entered into a contract with National Pools of Panama City, Inc., for the construction of a pool on his property located at 1000 Kimberly Lane, Lynn Haven, Florida. The price of the pool was $9,310.92. The contract established a schedule of payments for the construction of the pool. Each payment was made upon completion of a certain portion of the construction work. The contract also provided that National Pools would pay for all work and materials used in the construction of the pool. A building permit was obtained for the construction of the pool. No evidence was submitted on who actually pulled the construction permit. The contractor listed on the building permit was Respondent and the construction was supervised by Respondent. The pool was completed to Mr. Hay's satisfaction and he paid the last installment payment to National Pools. 1/ Mr. Hay received a release of lien from Vance White. Mr. White was the president of National Pools. However, Mr. Hay later learned That National Pools had not paid for some materials which had been used in the pool's construction. The supplied of the materials filed a lien In the amount of $1,718.49 on Mr. Hay's property. Mr. Hay attempted to get National Pools to pay the lien. However, the lien was never satisfied by National Pools. Eventually, Mr. Hay was forced to pay the lien plus attorney's fees and court costs or else have the lien foreclosed on his property. The amount Mr. Hay was forced to pay in order to clear the title to his property was $2,615.41. There was no substantial evidence submitted which demonstrated Respondent's relationship to National Pools. The fact that Respondent's name appeared on the building permit does not support a finding that Respondent is the primary contracting agent for National Pools. Likewise, the fact that Respondent's address on his license was next door to National Pools does not support a finding that Respondent is the primary contracting agent for National Pools. It is just as likely an inference that Respondent was not the qualifying agent for National Pools, but was its subcontractor and it is National Pools and its officers who are violating the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1990.
The Issue Whether 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 Atlas Pools, Inc., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Thompson in May, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Thompson property for a completed price of $5,940. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, by which time the Thompsons had paid Atlas Pools $5,643. The Thompsons hired another pool contractor to complete the project at additional cost in excess of $2,000. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Perry in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Perry property for a completed cost of $5,770. Work ceased in late July, 1978, after the Perrys had paid Atlas Pools $5,474.50. The Perrys completed the project through self-help and use of another pool contractor at a further cost of $1,566. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Wolters in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Wolters' property for a completed cost of $6,980. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, after the Wolters had paid Atlas Pools $6,631. The Wolters completed the pool through self help at an additional cost in excess of $1,300. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Albert Sentman in June, 1978, to construct a spa on the Sentman property for a completed cost of $5,500. The Sentmans paid Atlas Pools a $550 deposit after which the spa was delivered but not installed. The Sentmans completed the project by other means at an additional cost of $6,137. Respondent abandoned each of the above projects without notice to the customer, who ultimately learned of the company's bankruptcy from a third party source. Each of the four projects described above was completed at a final cost to the purchaser in excess of $900 over the contract price. The company filed a Voluntary Petition of Bankruptcy with the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, on August 1, 1978. Thereafter, on March 7, 1979, the Brevard County Contractors Licensing Board revoked the certificate held by Atlas Pools for a minimum period of one year, with the requirement that financial rehabilitation be demonstrated as a condition of reinstatement. At the time of bankruptcy, Respondent was president of Atlas Pools, Inc., and owned one-third of the stock. He was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, the company's only licensed pool contractor. He is currently employed in pool construction work by a licensed contractor. Proposed findings of fact were submitted by the parties. To the extent these proposed findings have not been adopted herein or are inconsistent with the above findings, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Pool Contractor's License No. RP 0018040 issued to Crawford L. Grove, be suspended until Respondent demonstrates compliance with the financial responsibility standards established by Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (1979). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1980.
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.
Findings Of Fact At all material times hereto, Respondent was the holder of a registered swimming pool contractors license number RP 0035739. Respondent's license was issued in the name of Malicki Pools, Terry W. Malicki. In January, 1981, Gary Wieland entered into a contract with Patrick Barr d/b/a Pool and Spa World. Barr was to construct a pool for Weiland in Port Charlotte for $7,856.00. Barr had become known to Wieland as a builder of swimming pools through a neighbor. Barr stated to Wieland that he was a pool contractor. Wieland made all payments due under the contract to Barr. Petitioner's evidence established that the Wieland swimming pool required a building permit. On March 3, 1981, Terry Malicki d/b/a Malicki Pools obtained permit number 66970 to construct a pool at Wieland's residence in Port Charlotte. Wieland's testimony established that Malicki constructed the pool at his residence. However, all of his dealings were with Barr. Barr was not licensed as a swimming pool contractor in Charlotte County or in Florida, and was convicted in the Charlotte County court of acting as a contractor without being licensed. Mr. Robert Guariglia entered into a contract with Barr to construct a swimming pool for $9,500.00. The pool was to be constructed at Lot 17, Block 402, Subdivision 23 or 913 Cherry Chase, Port Charlotte, Florida. Petitioner's evidence established that the Guariglia pool required a building permit. On June 10, 1981, Terry Malicki d/b/a Malicki Pools obtained permit number 68962 to construct a pool at Lot 17, Block 402, Subdivision 23 or 913 Cherry Chase, Port Charlotte, Florida. Guariglia paid the first installment of his contract by check to Barr in the amount of $3,325.00. However, because the pool was not level, Guariglia told Barr or Malicki who was supervising the work that he wanted the pool redone or removed. The pool was later removed and Guariglia had to pay $1,400 to have his property restored. As noted above, Barr was not licensed as a swimming pool contractor in Charlotte County or in Florida, and was convicted of acting as a contractor without being licensed. However, the swimming pool constructed at the identified Guariglia residence required a building permit. On September 3, 1981, the Charlotte County Building Board suspended the certificate of competency of the Respondent until such time as he corrected all matters which were then pending before that Board. On November 5, 1981, the Charlotte County Building Board reinstated Malicki's license.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the swimming pool contractor's license issued to Respondent for one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terry W. Malicki c/o Malicki Pools 1788 S.W. Sicily Avenue Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Stephen Schwartz, Esquire 680 Aaron Street, N.W. Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
