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.
The Issue Whether the claimants herein are entitled to payment from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund and, if so, the amount of the payment to which each claimant is entitled. Whether the license of the Petitioner is subject to automatic suspension pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Fund is established by Section 489.140, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of reimbursing those persons who meet the eligibility requirements set forth in Section 489.141, Florida Statutes. The Board is the entity responsible for reviewing applications for payment from the Fund and entering orders approving or disapproving the applications. Sections 489.140(1) and 489.143(1), Florida Statutes. Mr. Kiselius is a licensed residential pool/spa contractor, having been first issued such a license in 1984. Mr. Kiselius's license is currently on inactive status, but at the times material to this action, Mr. Kiselius's license was active. Pool Masters was a Florida corporation incorporated on August 10, 1995. Frederick H. Martin and Abraham Zafrani were the sole shareholders of the corporation, and Mr. Martin was the President and Secretary of the corporation, and Mr. Zafrani was the Vice-President and Treasurer. From on or about October 24, 1995, until November 14, 1997, Mr. Kiselius was the qualifying agent for Pool Masters. The record does not reflect the date on which Pool Masters was issued its certificate of authority allowing it to engage in contracting as a business organization, but it was assigned Qualified Business Organization License Number QB0002327 on or about November 6, 1996. Pool Masters filed for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on January 1, 1998, and the corporation was administratively dissolved on October 16, 1998. DOAH Case No. 99-1665: Santibanez and Pappas Eugene Santibanez and Alexander Pappas entered into a contract with Pool Masters for construction of a swimming pool. The contract was executed on or about March 25, 1997. The total price stated in the contract was $21,000.00; a change order was executed on November 4, 1997, for an additional price of $2,890.00. Pool Masters represented to Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas that it was a licensed swimming pool contractor. Pool Masters began work on the pool on or about May 17, 1997. Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas made payments to Pool Masters pursuant to the contract, and Pool Masters excavated the hole for the pool, put in the foundation, and poured the concrete. Pool Masters ceased work on the swimming pool in late November 1997, after the concrete was poured. A week later, Mr. Santibanez heard that Pool Masters had declared bankruptcy. At the time Pool Masters ceased work on the pool, Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas had paid Pool Masters a total of $19,690.00 for work done pursuant to the contract and change order. Although Pool Masters represented to them that the payments would be used to pay subcontractors and materialmen, there were subcontractors and materialmen who were not paid. At least one lien was filed against Mr. Santibanez's and Mr. Pappas's property, and they paid the subcontractors and materialmen directly in order to get the liens released. On January 17, 1998, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a Notice of Commencement of Case Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, showing that Pool Masters had filed for bankruptcy on January 7, 1998. On or about March 11, 1998, Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas submitted a Construction Industries Recovery Fund Claim Form to the Board, naming Pool Masters as the contractor. In an order entered April 20, 1998, the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay to allow Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas to file suit against Pool Masters. Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas filed a complaint against Pool Masters in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, seeking damages for breach of the contract for construction of the pool. Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas alleged in the complaint that Pool Masters had failed to complete the work; failed to perform in a reasonable and timely manner and abandoned the project for more than 90 days which is a violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(k) [Section 489.129(1)(j)];[ 3/ ] falsely represented that monies paid to them were paid to materialmen and sub- contractors which resulted in financial harm to the Plaintiffs which is a violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(l) [Section 489.129(1)(k)];[ 4/ ] committed mismanagement and misconduct which caused Plaintiffs financial harm as of [sic] liens were recorded as against the Plaintiff's [sic] home in violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(h)(1) [Section 489.129(1)(g)1.];[ 5/ ] f [sic]. committed mismanagement and misconduct which caused Plaintiffs financial harm in that the percentage of completion is less than the percentage of the total contract price paid in violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(h)(2) [Section 489.129(1)(g)2.].[ 6/ ] Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas further alleged in the complaint that the cost to complete the pool after construction was abandoned by Pool Masters was $17,975.50, and they included in the complaint an itemized list of expenditures to support their claim. The circuit court entered a Default Final Judgment on August 4, 1998, awarding Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas $17,675.50, to be recovered from Pool Masters, plus interest at the statutory rate. In a letter from their attorney dated August 12, 1998, Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas submitted to the Board additional documents to support their claim against the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, based on their Default Final Judgment against Pool Masters. The final report of the Trustee of Pool Masters' bankruptcy estate, dated December 1, 1999, indicated that Pool Masters had no funds remaining after disbursement for administrative expenses. Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas did not receive any funds from the bankruptcy estate or any other source to satisfy the judgment against Pool Masters. Mr. Santibanez and Mr. Pappas satisfy the statutory criteria for eligibility for payment from the Fund in the amount of $17,675.50. DOAH Case No. 99-1666: Klaus and Lucrecia Mueller Klaus and Lucrecia Mueller entered into a contract with Pool Masters for construction of a swimming pool. The contract was executed on or about February 24, 1997. The total price stated in the contract was $16,400.00. Pool Masters represented to Mr. and Mrs. Mueller that it was a licensed swimming pool contractor. Pool Masters began work on the pool in Spring 1997, and Mr. and Mrs. Mueller made payments to Pool Masters pursuant to the contract. Pool Masters excavated the hole for the pool, installed the steel frame, poured gunnite at the shallow end of the pool, and installed the brick and tile around the pool. Pool Masters last worked on the swimming pool in late November 1997. At the time Pool Masters ceased work on the pool, Mr. and Mrs. Mueller had paid Pool Masters approximately $12,900.00 for work done pursuant to the contract. Although Pool Masters represented to them that the payments would be used to pay subcontractors and materialmen, there were subcontractors and materialmen who were not paid. Liens were filed against Mr. and Mrs. Mueller's property, and they paid the subcontractors and materialmen directly in order to get the liens released. On January 17, 1998, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a Notice of Commencement of Case Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, showing that Pool Masters had filed for bankruptcy on January 7, 1998. On or about March 11, 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Mueller submitted a Construction Industries Recovery Fund Claim Form to the Board, naming Pool Masters as the contractor. In an order entered April 20, 1998, the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay to allow Mr. and Mrs. Mueller to file suit against Pool Masters. Mr. and Mrs. Mueller filed a complaint against Pool Masters in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, seeking damages for breach of the contract for construction of the pool. Mr. and Mrs. Mueller alleged in the complaint that Pool Masters had failed to complete the work; failed to perform in a reasonable and timely manner and abandoned the project for more than 90 days which is a violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(k) [Section 489.129(1)(j)];[ 7/ ] falsely represented that monies paid to them were paid to materialmen and sub- contractors which resulted in financial harm to the Plaintiffs which is a violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(l) [Section 489.129(1)(k)];[ 8/ ] committed mismanagement and misconduct which caused Plaintiffs financial harm as of [sic] liens were recorded as against the Plaintiff's [sic] home in violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(h)(1) [Section 489.129(1)(g)1.];[ 9/ ] f [sic]. committed mismanagement and misconduct which caused Plaintiffs financial harm in that the percentage of completion is less than the percentage of the total contract price paid in violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(h)(2) [Section 489.129(1)(g)2.].[ 10/ ] Mr. and Mrs. Mueller further alleged in the complaint that the cost to complete the pool after construction was abandoned by Pool Masters was $13,299.51. The matter was presented to the circuit court, ex parte, upon Mr. and Mrs. Mueller's Motion for Default Final Judgment. The court entered a Default Final Judgment in June 1998, awarding Mr. and Mrs. Mueller $13,299.51, to be recovered from Pool Masters, plus interest at the statutory rate. In a letter from their attorney dated June 23, 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Mueller submitted to the Board additional documents to support their claim against the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, based on their Default Final Judgment against Pool Masters. The final report of the Trustee of Pool Masters' bankruptcy estate, dated December 1, 1999, indicated that Pool Masters had no funds remaining after disbursement for administrative expenses. Mr. and Mrs. Mueller did not receive any funds from the bankruptcy estate or any other source to satisfy their judgment against Pool Masters. Mr. and Mrs. Mueller satisfy the statutory criteria for eligibility for payment from the Fund in the amount of $13,299.51. DOAH Case No. 99-1667: Mario and Martha Alboniga Mario and Martha Alboniga entered into a contract with Pool Masters for construction of a swimming pool. The contract was executed on or about March 17, 1997. The total price stated in the contract was $24,000.00. Pool Masters represented to Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga that it was a licensed swimming pool contractor. Pool Masters began work on the pool on November 10, 1997, and Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga made payments to Pool Masters pursuant to the contract. Pool Masters excavated the hole for the pool and poured the concrete form of the pool. The last day Pool Masters worked on the swimming pool was November 19, 1997. Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga later heard that Pool Masters had declared bankruptcy. At the time Pool Masters ceased work on the pool, Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga had paid Pool Masters a total of $15,200.00 for work done pursuant to the contract. Although Pool Masters represented to them that the payments would be used to pay subcontractors and materialmen, there were subcontractors and materialmen who were not paid. Liens were filed against Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga’s property, and they paid the subcontractors and materialmen directly in order to get the liens released. On January 17, 1998, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a Notice of Commencement of Case Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, showing that Pool Masters had filed for bankruptcy on January 7, 1998. On or about March 11, 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga submitted a Construction Industries Recovery Fund Claim Form to the Board, naming Pool Masters as the contractor. In an order entered April 20, 1998, the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay to allow Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga to file suit against Pool Masters. Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga filed a complaint against Pool Masters in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, seeking damages for breach of the contract for construction of the pool. Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga alleged in the complaint that Pool Masters had failed to complete the work; failed to perform in a reasonable and timely manner and abandoned the project for more than 90 days which is a violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(k) [Section 489.129(1)(j)];[ 11/ ] falsely represented that monies paid to them were paid to materialmen and sub- contractors which resulted in financial harm to the Plaintiffs which is a violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(l) [Section 489.129(1)(k)];[ 12/ ] committed mismanagement and misconduct which caused Plaintiffs financial harm as of [sic] liens were recorded as against the Plaintiff's [sic] home in violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(h)(1) [Section 489.129(1)(g)1.];[ 13/ ] f [sic]. committed mismanagement and misconduct which caused Plaintiffs financial harm in that the percentage of completion is less than the percentage of the total contract price paid in violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(h)(2) [Section 489.129(1)(g)2.].[ 14/ ] Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga further alleged in the complaint that the cost to complete the pool after construction was abandoned by Pool Masters was $10,541.77. The circuit court entered a Final Judgment "pursuant to stipulation" on August 4, 1998, awarding Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga $10,541.77, to be recovered from Pool Masters, plus interest at the statutory rate. In a letter from their attorney dated August 12, 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga submitted to the Board additional documents to support their claim against the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, based on their Final Judgment against Pool Masters. The final report of the Trustee of Pool Masters' bankruptcy estate, dated December 1, 1999, indicated that Pool Masters had no funds remaining after disbursement for administrative expenses. Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga did not receive any funds from the bankruptcy estate or any other source to satisfy their judgment against Pool Masters. Mr. and Mrs. Alboniga satisfy the statutory criteria for eligibility for payment from the Fund in the amount of $10,541.77. DOAH Case No. 99-1668: Salvator Militello and Sharon Sidorski Salvator Militello and Sharon Sidorski entered into a contract with Pool Masters for construction of a swimming pool. The contract was executed on or about April 6, 1997. The total price stated in the contract was $24,295.00. Pool Masters represented to Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski that it was a licensed swimming pool contractor. Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski made payments to Pool Masters pursuant to the contract. Pool Masters excavated the hole for the pool and spa, installed basic plumbing, and poured the concrete for the pool. Pool Masters last worked on the swimming pool in October 1997. At the time Pool Masters ceased work on the pool, Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski had paid Pool Masters $19,389.00 for work done pursuant to the contract. Although Pool Masters represented to them that the payments would be used to pay subcontractors and materialmen, there were subcontractors and materialmen who were not paid. Liens were filed against Mr. Militello's and Ms. Sidorski's property, and they paid the subcontractors and materialmen directly in order to get the liens released. On January 17, 1998, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a Notice of Commencement of Case Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, showing that Pool Masters had filed for bankruptcy on January 7, 1998. On or about March 11, 1998, Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski submitted a Construction Industries Recovery Fund Claim Form to the Board, naming Pool Masters as the contractor. In an order entered April 20, 1998, the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay to allow Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski to file suit against Pool Masters. Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski filed a complaint against Pool Masters in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, seeking damages for breach of the contract for construction of the pool. Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski alleged in the complaint that Pool Masters had failed to complete the work; failed to perform in a reasonable and timely manner and abandoned the project for more than 90 days which is a violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(k) [Section 489.129(1)(j)];[ 15/ ] falsely represented that monies paid to them were paid to materialmen and sub- contractors which resulted in financial harm to the Plaintiffs which is a violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(l) [Section 489.129(1)(k)];[ 16/ ] committed mismanagement and misconduct which caused Plaintiffs financial harm as of [sic] liens were recorded as against the Plaintiff's [sic] home in violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(h)(1) [Section 489.129(1)(g)1.];[ 17/ ] f [sic]. committed mismanagement and misconduct which caused Plaintiffs financial harm in that the percentage of completion is less than the percentage of the total contract price paid in violation of F.S. 489.129(1)(h)(2) [Section 489.129(1)(g)2.].[ 18/ ] Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski further alleged in the complaint that the cost to complete the pool after construction was abandoned by Pool Masters was $13,544.00 and that they paid $1,641.68 to satisfy liens and unpaid subcontractors and materialmen, for total damages of $15,185.68. The circuit court entered a Final Judgment "pursuant to stipulation" on August 4, 1998, awarding Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski $15,185.68, to be recovered from Pool Masters, plus interest at the statutory rate. In a letter from their attorney dated August 12, 1998, Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski submitted to the Board additional documents to support their claim against the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, based on their Final Judgment against Pool Masters. The final report of the Trustee of Pool Masters' bankruptcy estate, dated December 1, 1999, indicated that Pool Masters had no funds remaining after disbursement for administrative expenses. Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski did not receive any funds from the bankruptcy estate or any other source to satisfy their judgment against Pool Masters. Mr. Militello and Ms. Sidorski satisfy the statutory criteria for eligibility for payment from the Fund in the amount of $15,185.68. DOAH Case No. 00-0024: Jack and Paula Tieger Jack and Paula Tieger entered into a contract with Pool Masters for construction of a swimming pool. The contract was executed on or about December 17, 1995. The total price stated in the contract was $28,200.00. Pursuant to the contract, Pool Masters built a pool and screen enclosure, and Mr. and Mrs. Tieger paid Pool Masters the price specified in the contract. Mr. and Mrs. Tieger were not, however, satisfied with the work done by Pool Masters, and, in or around 1997, they filed a complaint for breach of contract against Pool Masters in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in Broward County, Florida. In the complaint, Mr. and Mrs. Tieger alleged that Pool Masters had breached the contract: By failing to adequately explain the technical terms used in the Agreement to the TIEGERS; By failing to install a vacuum line with valve as specified in the Agreement; By failing to install anti-corrosive handrails in the swimming pool; By failing to properly install and/or provide a properly functioning waterfall as specified in the Agreement; By failing to properly fill the area behind the waterfall; By unilaterally, and or the TIEGERS' [sic] objection, placing a tile with the "Pool Masters" logo on the steps heading into the pool: By failing to re-route the TIEGERS' [sic] sprinkler system in a timely manner; By failing to advise the TIEGERS that they were going to need to pay for and install a separate circuit breaker box as part of the installation of the swimming pool; and By failing to install the second screen door as specified in the Agreement. Mr. and Mrs. Tieger did not identify the amount of damages they allegedly suffered as a result of Pool Masters's alleged breach of contract. Mr. and Mrs. Tieger were not aware that Pool Masters had declared bankruptcy until January 1998, when Mrs. Tieger went to Pool Masters' office and found the notice on the door. A non-jury trial was held before the circuit court on March 5, 1998; Pool Masters did not attend the trial. In a Final Judgment entered on March 25, 1998, the court awarded Mr. and Mrs. Tieger $4,200 as compensatory damages to be recovered from Pool Masters. In a Proof of Claim dated May 13, 1998, and filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Florida, Mr. and Mrs. Tieger submitted an unsecured claim against Pool Masters' bankruptcy estate in the amount of $7,300.00, which represented the compensatory damages awarded in the final judgment, together with attorney's fees and costs. Mr. and Mrs. Tieger have not collected any portion of their judgment against Pool Masters. Mr. and Mrs. Tieger submitted to the Board a Construction Industries Recovery Fund Claim Form dated December 5, 1998, and the Board awarded Mr. and Mrs. Tieger $800.00, representing the cost of the vacuum line with valve and the second screen door which Pool Masters had not installed. Mr. and Mrs. Tieger do not satisfy the statutory criteria for eligibility for payment from the Fund. Mr. and Mrs. Tieger failed to establish that they filed their claim with the Board within two years of the date they discovered the alleged deficiencies in the pool, and they failed to establish that the final judgment against Pool Masters was based on a violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998). The evidence presented herein is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Kiselius is the licensee against whom the claimants obtained final judgments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 25/ it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board: Enter final orders as follows: In DOAH Case No. 99-1665, finding Eugene Santibanez and Alexander Pappas eligible for payment from the Fund in the amount of $17,675.00, in satisfaction of a final judgment against Pool Masters, Inc.; In DOAH Case No. 99-1666, finding Klaus and Lucrecia Mueller eligible for payment from the Fund in the amount of $13,299.51, in satisfaction of a final judgment against Pool Masters, Inc.; In DOAH Case No. 99-1667, finding Mario and Martha Alboniga eligible for payment from the Fund in the amount of $10,541.77, in satisfaction of a final judgment against Pool Masters, Inc.; In DOAH Case No. 99-1668, finding Salvator Militello and Sharon Sidorski eligible for payment from the Fund in the amount of $15,185.68, in satisfaction of a final judgment against Pool Masters, Inc.; and In DOAH Case No. 00-0024, dismissing the claim of Jack and Linda Tieger for payment from the Fund. Determine that Christopher P. Kiselius is not the "licensee" whose license is subject to automatic suspension pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), as a result of payments to the claimants in DOAH Case Nos. 99- 1665, 99-1666, 99-1667, and 99-1668. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Henry J. Tinkler was licensed by petitioner as a swimming pool contractor, holding license No. 0024949, under the name of "Henry J. Tinkler." At one time, Fred C. Charlton worked as a "salesman" of swimming pool construction contracts for a Ft. Lauderdale construction company. When the Ft. Lauderdale company failed, several contracts to build swimming pools remained unexecuted. So that his "sales" would not have been in valid, Mr. Charlton organized Aquapool in late 1978 or early 1979 to step in to the shoes of the Ft. Lauderdale contractor. He has been president of the corporation since its inception. He knew that he could not pull building permits himself; and Mr. Charlton did not involve himself in the actual construction of the pools. Respondent became vice-president of Aquapool and held this office until September of 1979. Respondent has built several pools pursuant to oral agreements with Charlton (acting for Aquapool), to build all pools Aquapool "sold" in Pinellas County. In these transactions, Charlton made a profit and Tinkler made a profit. Respondent never applied for any building permit under Aquapool's name. He always used his own name or the name "Hank's Custom Pools." Respondent never made application to qualify Aquapool as a registered pool contractor in Florida. Neither did respondent make application to qualify "Hank's Custom Pools" as a registered pool contractor. Not uncommonly, contractors do business under fictitious trade names like "Hank's Custom Pools." Eventually one Clay Andrews of Jacksonville made application to quality Aquapool as a swimming pool contractor in Florida until November 17, 1979. Harry George Pugh and Grace L. Pugh signed, on May 19, 1979, a contract with Aquapool for construction of a swimming pool at their Indian Rocks Beach home. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On the building permit application form, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, the contractor is listed as "Hank's Custom Pools." The application is dated June 19, 1979. Mr. Pugh never met Mr. Tinkler. Guy Jean and Jane A. Narejo also contracted with Aquapool to build a swimming pool at their home in Largo, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Pugh never met Mr. Tinkler. On June 14, 1979, "H. Tinkler" applied for a permit to build the pool. The permit issued the following day. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Willard L. Marks and Helen J. Marks signed, on May 1, 1979, a contract with Aquapool for construction of a swimming pool at their home in Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. Mr. Marks never met Mr. Tinkler. H. J. Tinkler applied for a permit to build the pool on June 7, 1979. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Swimming pool contractors ordinarily subcontract electrical work. Sometimes as many as four or five subcontractors participate in the building of a swimming pool. Petitioner's proposed recommended order has been considered and proposed findings of fact have been adopted except where they have been deemed irrelevant or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's registration as a swimming pool contractor for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald Nelson, Esquire 4950 West Kennedy Tampa, Florida 33609 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32302 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION/CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-3043 HENRY J. TINKLER, RP 0024949 d/b/a Individual 5243 27th Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent is subject to discipline for permitting his general contractor's license to be used by another person to construct a swimming pool, thereby conspiring with an unlicensed person to avoid statutory licensure requirements, and by failing to oversee the quality of the work performed by that person under Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible to prosecute administrative complaints under Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, and the rules implementing those statutes. At all times material to the complaint, Raymond Hurley was licensed as a certified general contractor, holding Florida license CGC 000773 and served as the qualifying agent for Capital Resources and Development, Inc. Kenneth R. and Lucille M. Clopper, of Fort Pierce, Florida, entered into a contract with Fred Humberstone, doing business as Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast, Inc., on September 21, 1987, for the construction of a pool and screened enclosure at the Clopper's home. The contract price was $15,500. Mr. Humberstone has never been a qualified contractor in St. Lucie County, Florida. Mr. Hurley became authorized to do business as a contractor in St. Lucie County, Florida, on September 29, 1987, when he provided a copy of his state certified general contractor's license, a certificate of insurance for worker's compensation and general liability property damage insurance to St. Lucie County. St. Lucie County Permit No. 44574 was issued to Capital Resources and Development, Inc., on October 9, 1987. The permit application had been dated September 24, 1987. The application bore Mr. Hurley's contractor license number. In the space for the name of the company, the application had originally been written in the name of Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast, of Stuart, Florida. The name of the applicant had been scratched through, and the name of Capital Resources and Development, Inc., was written over it. The application bears a handwritten signature which reads Raymond S. Hurley, but it is not his signature. Mr. Hurley did not sign the application, or authorize anyone to sign it for him. Mr. Hurley knew Mr. Humberstone, the owner of Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast. Humberstone had difficulty with his corporation because his qualifying contractor had left, and Humberstone owned approximately $150,000 worth of equipment which he could not use without a qualifying contractor. Humberstone made a proposal to Hurley to become the qualifying contractor for Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast. It was about this time that Mr. Hurley first qualified to engage in the business of contracting in St. Lucie County. Mr. Humberstone must have pulled the permit for the Clopper jor, using Mr. Hurley's licensure in St. Lucie County. This is likely because at first, the line for the permit applicant had been filled in with the name of Humberstone's business, Southern Fiberglass Pools by the Treasure Coast. Mr. Hurley had become licensed in St. Lucie County because he was contemplating going into business with Mr. Humberstone. What cannot be determined from the evidence in the record is whether Mr. Hurley had agreed with Mr. Humberstone to make his licensure available to Mr. Humberstone so Humberstone could continue in the pool contracting business in St. Lucie County. Mr. Hurley did not sign the application for the permit at the Clopper's home. He never went to the Clopper's home to see the work or to meet the Cloppers. Had he gone into partnership with Humberstone he would likely have participated, to some extent, in the work. On this matter, the Department's proof is insufficient. After the construction at the Clopper home began, there were a number of delays in completion of the pool, and the contractor failed to install stress relief for the pool deck which resulted in cracking of the pool deck. The pool itself had three leaks. The problems with the pool remained unresolved and the Clopper's finally settled with Mr. Humberstone for payment for $1,020 in exchange for providing Mr. Humberstone with the release of liability. Ultimately, the Cloppers spend $1,659 to repair the problems created by Mr. Humberstone's inadequate work. Mr. Hurley was never at the job site, and the Cloppers never knew anything about him until after their pool had been completed; all of their dealings had been with Humberstone.
Recommendation It is recommended that the administrative complaint filed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board against Raymond Hurley be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of January 1991. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-4233 Rulings on findings proposed by the Petitioner: 1-7. Accepted. 8. Rejected, as there is insufficient evidence to find that Mr. Hurley, although he knew Mr. Humberstone, had entered into any agreement Humberstone to become a qualifying contractor for Humberstone's corporation. While that is one inference which could be drawn from the evidence, the evidence is not strong enough to permit such finding, at the level of certainty required for clear and convincing evidence, to be made. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent: 1-6. Adopted 7. Rejected. There is insufficient evidence in the record to make specific finding with respect to handwriting exemplars, but the testimony of Mr. Hurley that he did not sign the St. Lucie County permit application has been accepted. Copies furnished: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Glenn N. Blake, Esquire BLAKE & TORRES Strange Building 500 South US 1 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Robert E. Stone, Esquire SULLIVAN, STONE, SULLIVAN LaJOIE and THACKER 100 Avenue "A", Suite 1F Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 1979, the Respondent entered into a written swimming pool contract with Mr. and Mrs. Stellato, wherein the Respondent agreed to construct a swimming pool for them on their property in accordance with the plans and specifications attached to the contract. Among other things this swimming pool contract provided for the payment of a total purchase price of $11,225.00 to be paid in the following manner: ten percent to be paid at the signing of the contract. fifty percent to be paid upon the installation of the tank. thirty-five percent to be paid upon completion of the base decking and screen enclosure. five percent, or the balance of the purchase price, to be paid when the filter system was put in operation. Further, this contract provided that if the purchasers of the swimming pool failed to pay the purchase price in accordance with the prescribed schedule, the contractor reserved the right to suspend all work on the swimming pool, and to suspend all warranty work due after completion of the pool. During the month of February, 1980, the Respondent, acting through his duly authorized representatives, did all acts necessary to cause the filter system of the subject swimming pool to become operable, and requested that the Stellatos pay the five percent balance due under the contract. The Stellatos failed to make this final payment, claiming that there was a problem with the pool decking. In response to this complaint the Respondent personally met with the Stellatos, and agreed to cover the problem area of the decking with Chattahoochee River Rock at no cost to the Stellatos. In exchange for this agreement the Stellatos agreed to pay the balance due under the contract. Thereupon, the Respondent installed Chattahoochee River Rock over a substantial portion of the decking at his own expense. During the installation of this Chattahoochee River Rock, Mrs. Stellato contacted the Respondent by phone and demanded that he also install, at his own expense, Chattahoochee River Rock over an existing concrete patio area that had not been built by the Respondent. The Respondent refused to incur this additional expense, because it was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. Thereafter, the Stellatos again failed to pay the balance due under the contract. The subject swimming pool was inspected by an inspector for Palm Bay, and the City issued a certificate of occupancy in June of 1980. The pool was ready for a certificate of occupancy in February of 1980 except for the removal of one pile of dirt that still remained on the premises. All other aspects of the pool construction passed inspection in February of 1980 when the pool filter system was activated. Since February Of 1980, the Stellatos have had full use of the subject swimming pool. Except for alleging that some low spots remain in the pool decking, the Petitioner offered no substantial evidence of any other significant problem with the Respondent's construction. Notwithstanding the failure of the Stellatos to pay the balance of the contract price in a timely manner, the Respondent performed warranty work on the subject swimming pool after February of 1980. During the course of this warranty work the Respondent added chlorine chemicals to the pool because the Stellatos had failed to properly maintain it up to June of 1980. Another claim concerning a leaking pipe on the pool sweep did not manifest itself until April of 1981, after the expiration of the one year warranty period afforded by the Respondent to all customers. The Petitioner offered no evidence to show that the leak in this pipe was caused by the Respondent. Notwithstanding the expiration of the warranty period, and the lack of evidence to show that the leak was caused by the Respondent, he did send an employee to the job site and stopped the water leak, at no cost to the Stellatos. On several occasions when the Respondent or his employees attempted to satisfy the complaints of the Stellatos, they had to leave the job site because of the abusive language and conduct directed toward them by the Stellatos. In one instance Mr. Stellato ordered the Respondent's employees from the job site and prevented performance of any work under the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint, as amended, against John W. Thornett be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9 day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1982.
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 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.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Dominick A. Solitario, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Dominick Solitario, was licensed as a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license no. CP CA17558. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Jade Pools, Inc. Sometime around February of 1988, Respondent contracted with Michael and Linda Skidd to remarcite the swimming pool at the Skidd's home in Coral Springs, Florida. The contract price for the remarciting of the Skidd's pool was $2000.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work. There is no evidence that there were any leaks in the Skidd's pool prior to the time the work was undertaken by Respondent. At the time the work was begun, one of the Respondent's employees discovered an expansion plug that had been inserted in the main drain. The employee inquired as to whether the Skidds had experienced any problems with the drain. The Skidds denied having any problems. The evidence presented at the hearing was inconclusive as to whether the main drain was working properly. At the time the Respondent began work under the contract, the Skidds were using a "creepy crawler" to clean the pool. This device required the main drain to be shut off. While Mrs. Skidd testisfied that she thought the main drain was working properly, she admitted that her husband was more familiar with the cleaning and mechanical aspects of the pool. Mr. Skidd did not testify. Respondent contends that Mr. Skidd was present at the time the plug was removed from the main drain and that the condition was brought to his attention. However, it does not appear that either Respondent or Mr. Skidd knew why the drain was plugged or the significance of the situation. Respondent proceeded with his contractual work without conducting any tests to determine whether there was a leak in the main drain. When the work was completed, the workers directed the Skidds not to use their main drain. No explanation was given for this instruction. After the work was completed, the Skidds turned on the main drain and lost approximately four inches of water from the pool in a relatively short time. The Skidds turned off the drain and called Jade Pools. An employee of Jade Pools came out and inspected the premises. He advised the Skidds not to use the main drain, but instead to use their "creepy crawler." The Respondent's employee indicated that there was a leak in the main drain. It is not cler how he reached that conclusion. In order to complete the work on the Skidd contract, Respondent's employees were required to install a pressure release valve near the pool's main drain by drilling through the bottom of the pool. The hole for this valve was drilled several inches away from the main drain and its plumbing. Petitioner suggests that the Respondent's employees may have punctured the main drain or its plumbing when this hole was drilled. However, no persuasive evidence was introducted to prove this allegation. Respondent contends that the pool was improperly constructed and/or that the main drain line had been previously damaged and plugged shut to avoid detection of the leak. In order to perform the contracted work, Respondent's employees unplugged the drain and the alleged preexisting leak became evident. Respondent has inserted a plug into the main drain and claims that the pool is now in the same condition it was when he began his work. Respondent has refused to repair the main drain or perform any additional work unless he is paid for it. At the time that Respondent first proposed to enter into a contract with the Skidds, he was told by the Skidds that there was a suction leak at the pump. In retrospect, Respondent contends that this suction leak confirms the preexisting problem with the main drain. No conclusvie evidence was presented to establish why the pool is leaking. As of the date of the hearing, the Skidds are still unable to use their main drain. The Petitioner did not present persuasive evidence to establish that Respondent was responsible for the leak in the Skidds' pool. While it is possible that the Respondent's employees caused the leak when they drilled the hole for the pressure release valve, an equally likely explanation is that there was an existing problem that had been obscured by the prior plugging of the main drain. On or about June 29, 1987, Respondent contracted with Anthony Gallagher to construct a swimming pool and a deck at Mr. Gallagher's home in Coral Springs, Florida for the contract price of $17,800.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work less $100 for damage caused during construction. The contract with Mr. Gallagher called for Respondent's company to top the existing patio slab and tie it into a newly added patio deck surrounding the pool. The building permit for this work was pulled by Jade Pools. Although the work on the Gallagher deck and pool was completed sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, the pool and deck have still not passed final inspection by the City. The local building officials have refused to approve the final inspection on the Gallgher's deck because of the excessive slope from the back of the house to the pool. The pitch of the deck constructed by Respondent's company from the back of the Gallagher's house to the pool is very severe, effectively rendering a portion of the deck unusable. A table cannot sit flat on this portion of the deck because of the slope. The Respondent's construction of a deck with such a severe slope that it is incapable of passing final inspection constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. In order to provide a usable deck, Respondent should have ripped out the existing deck or placed the pool at a higher elevation. Respondent contends that his contract did not call for him to rip out the existing deck, but only to top it. He claims the existing deck that was topped had a similarly severe pitch. Nonetheless, Respondent is responsible for insuring that his final product is functional and able to pass inspection. Respondent has failed to take any remedial action to obtain a successful final inspection. During construction, the Gallaghers, on several occassions, expressed displeasure with the deck and its excessive slope in some areas. On two occasions, Respondent sent his workmen out to correct certain aspects of the construction that the Gallaghers found unacceptable. Ultimately, the homeowners paid the Respondent in full and instructed Respondent to stay off their property. Although Respondent's presentation was somewhat unclear, he appears to argue that these actions by the Gallaghers relieve him of any liability for his work under this contract. However, the evidence established that the Respondent was never able to obtain a successful final inspection of his work at the Gallagher home. This failure is the direct result of the excessive pitch in the patio he constructed. While the Gallaghers have paid the full amount of the contract and are apparently using the pool and patio, these facts do not relieve Respondent from responsibility for the incompetently constructed deck. The City of Coral Springs requires a deck electrical inspection to insure that all the steel in the deck is on the same electrical field (same electrical bond) as the pool. Jade Pools failed to call for this electrical bond inspection before pouring the Gallagher's deck. Ultimately, the city building officials required the Respondent's company to expose a portion of the steel in the deck to confirm that the pool was properly bonded. This test indicated that the pool was in fact properly bonded. On or about August 10, 1988, Respondent contracted with Kevin Fusco to construct a swimming pool and deck at Mr. Fusco's home in Boca Raton, Florida for a total contract price of $10,030.00. Respondent has been paid in full under this contract. Jade Pools obtained the building permit for the Fusco's pool. Therefore, Respondent's company was responsible for obtaining all of the inspections for the construction, including the final inspection. Prior to the time that work was begun on the Fusco contract, Respondent's employees inspected the property and were advised as to some existing problems with drainage in the backyard of the house. The Fusco's lot was designed to drain from back to front. A berm runs behind the Fusco property and causes water to drain through the backyard. On some occasions prior to construction, this drainage situation resulted in standing water against the back of the house. The installation of the Fusco's pool seriously affected the drainage plan for the property. After the pool was installed, there was often standing water all around the deck following a rain. After construction was started and the deck was formed out, the county refused to give approval for pouring the deck because of anticipated problems with drainage in the backyard. One of Respondent's employees advised the Fuscos that if they removed approximately three feet of soil from around the deck, the county would allow them to proceed with pouring the deck. Based upon this recommendation, the Fuscos entered into a contract with a company recommended by Respondent. That company removed approximately six or eight feet of soil all around the deck and installed a rock bed in the area. The cost of this removal was in addition to the contractual price agreed to between Respondent and the Fuscos and was borne by the Fuscos. As indicated above, the installation of the pool greatly exacerbated the drainage problems that previously existed on the property. Respondent did not warn the homeowners prior to construction to expect this result nor did the Respondent take steps to preclude these additional drainage problems. While Respondent contends that the Fusco's property was inappropriately graded prior to the time the work was initiated, Respondent never brought this fact to the attention of the homeowners until after the pool was installed and the increased drainage problems became evident. After the work was completed, the county inspectors advised the homeowners that the pool did not pass final inspection because of drainage problems caused by the pool and deck. By the time the Fuscos found out the pool had not passed final inspection, Respondent had been paid in full under the contract. The Fuscos contacted Jade Pools, which refused to take any corrective action. The Respondent claimed that drainage problems were not part of his company's responsibility and refused to return to the property to correct the problem even though the pool had not passed final inspection. The Fuscos hired an engineer to design an acceptable solution to the drainage problem and arranged for the completion of the work at their own expense. In accordance with this solution, the homeowners installed a series of french drains around the back yard in order to try to get the water to percolate into the ground. After this additional work was completed, the pool passed final inspection by the county. It was approximately one year after Jade Pools finished its work before the final inspection was passed. The Fuscos continue to experience increased drainage problems on their property as a result of the installation of the pool and deck. These problems include standing water around the deck after a heavy rain and, in some instances, an overflow of water into the pool. While the Respondent was installing the Fusco's pool, Respondent was concurrently installing a pool at the house next door. There has been no drainage problems on the property next door because the elevation on that house is higher. The Fusco's pool was actually installed at a level that was at or below the surrounding ground level. The problems associated with such an installation were never explained to the homeowners prior to the time the work was commenced. Respondent contends that this situation was necessary because of the existing elevations of the house and lot. He says that the pool and deck had to be installed in a manner that provided a four inch step down from the house and also matched the existing slab. The drainage problems could have been minimized by swaling out from the pool area to the side of the house. While Respondent contends that such "landscaping" efforts were not part of his contract, he should have not undertaken the work unless he could adequately deal with the drainage problem and ensure that the final installation would pass inspection. The pool contractor is responsible for insuring that, after the pool is built, proper drainage is obtained around the pool. The efforts undertaken by the Respondent were insufficient to deal with the resulting drainage problems and constitute incompetency in the practice of contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Section 489.129(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with the Fusco and Gallagher contracts, issuing a reprimand and imposing a fine on Respondent in the amount of $2,000.00 for having committed these violations. In addition, Respondent should be placed on probation for two years and required to reimburse the Fusco's for the money they have expended to correct the drainage problems caused by Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of February, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1991.
