The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not the certified pool contractor's license issued to Respondents Licensee, Edward G. Batter, should be revoked or suspended or the Licensee's right to practice thereunder should be withdrawn based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail as set out in the Administrative Complaint filed herein on August 23, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Edward G. Batter, d/b/a Tropicana Pools, Inc., (Respondent or Licensee) is a certified pool contractor who holds license No. CPC 012906. Respondent was first licensed on July 28, 1978, as qualifier of Tropicana Pools, Inc., which license was temporarily suspended in June, 1979, and remains in an invalid status to this date. By its Administrative Complaint, Petitioner's Executive Director took action to revoke or otherwise suspend the Respondent's rights to practice pursuant to his referenced license. As a licensed pool contractor, Respondent is subject to the Board's rules and regulations. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1.) A special meeting of the Board of Adjustment, Appeals and Examiners for general building contractors for Hillsborough County was held on Thursday, July 19, 1979, for the purpose of hearing certain allegations concerning the demise of Tropicana pools, Inc. Jerry Taylor, Petitioner's field investigator, presented the Hillsborough County Board with the results of an investigation of Respondent and presented several cases wherein funds were diverted after being collected for a specific contract to other projects or for other purposes and that projects for which funds had been collected had either been left unstarted or abandoned at the time Tropicana Pools, Inc., ceased doing business. At that meeting, the Respondent's construction activities were suspended by the Board until restitution or settlement was made and verified by affected parties. The temporary suspension by Hillsborough County became final during August of 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3.) Howard Shaw, Director of Building and Zoning for the City of Tampa, appeared and testified to substantiate the disciplinary action taken against the Respondent by Hillsborough County during the summer of 1979. On June 7, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. James R. Stanton entered into a contract with Respondent to have a pool constructed for a price of $8,182.00. Respondent was paid a 10 percent deposit to commence construction of the Stantons' pool. Respondent absconded with the deposit and never notified the Stantons that their pool would not be built nor did Respondent return their deposit. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5.) On April 19, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Hillary entered into a contract for the construction of a swimming pool for a contract price of $8,130.00. Approximately $5,690.00 or approximately 70 percent of the contract sum was paid on June 18, 1979, and the work ceased on the Hillary project at a completion stage of approximately 40 percent. Respondent abandoned the Hillary project on approximately June 5, 1979. The Hillarys completed their pool at a price of approximately $5,000.00 over and above the contracted price. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6.) On April 30, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Leon Tope entered into a contract for the construction of a swimming pool at their residence for the contract price of $8,050.00. On June 18, 1979, the Topes had tendered to Respondent approximately 70 percent of the contract cost while the Respondent abandoned the construction of the Topes' pool after approximately 40 percent of the work was complete. Respondent abandoned the project on June 18, 1979, and the Topes completed the construction of their pool at a price of approximately $2,000.00 by engaging the services of other contractors in the area. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10, and the testimony of Jim Moran.) Jerry Taylor, Petitioner's field investigator, attended the probable cause hearing during August of 1979 in which the Hillsborough County Board of Examiners suspended the pool license of Respondent. Investigator Taylor briefed the Hillsborough County Board respecting the results of the investigation conducted by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's pool contractor's license No. CPC 012906 be REVOKED. ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue 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.
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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a registered and certified pool contractor having been issued license numbers RP 0023613 and CP 0012607. Respondent's license number RP 0023613 has been delinquent since June 30, 1983, but his license number CP 0012607 was active and in full force and effect until he ceased doing business in approximately September, 1985. Respondent conducted his pool contracting business in the name of Hallmark Pools for approximately 14 years. The business entity "Hallmark Pools" was properly qualified and named on the Respondent's license. In 1985, the Respondent began to enter the business of designing outdoor patios and fountains, as well as pools. He wished to retain the good will he had gained operating under the name "Hallmark Pools" while gaining good will in the new name under which he planned to conduct business in the future, "Aquatic Environments, Inc." During this transition period, and until he closed his business, the Respondent's contracts and letterhead contained the names "Hallmark Pools" and "Aquatic Environments, Inc.," but that name never appeared on his licensure. On or about March 12, 1985, Respondent, through Hallmark Pools/Aquatic Environments, Inc., contracted with customers Mr. and Mrs. Allan Schaeffer to construct a screened-in pool and spa at their residence located at Archer Street, Lehigh Acres, Florida, for a contract price of $20,000. Later approximately $1,700 of extras were added to the contract. On or about March 21, 1985, the Schaeffers paid the Respondent $2,000 on the contract. On or about May 23, 1985, the Schaeffers paid another $17,000 on the contract. Approximately, $2,600 remained owing on the contract. The customers reside part of the time in New Jersey. In the contract, Respondent promised a June 15 completion date. When the customers arrived in Florida on or about June 14, they found that the project was not complete. When the customers contacted the Respondent, the work was resumed. The pool was quickly completed and was usable by the beginning of the July 4th weekend. Some punch list items remained to be done, but the Schaeffers preferred that the Respondent wait until after they returned to New Jersey in August, 1985. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent promised a June 15 completion date while knowing that he would not be able to finish the work by that date. During the summer of 1985, personal problems the Respondent was facing at the time mounted, and eventually he decided he no longer could continue to operate his business. He began to plan to close his business and have all pending matters either resolved by himself before he went out of business or resolved by his brother Chad Jackson, also a licensed pool contractor, after going out of business. He did this by assigning pending contracts to his brother. He also attempted to insure that all suppliers were paid either by himself before he went out of business or by his brother out of payments due under the contracts assigned to him. Except for the Schaeffer job, the Respondent's arrangements to close out his business did not result in any complaints. Near the end of August, 1985, the Schaeffers gave the Respondent a punch list of work still due under the contract to be done while the Schaeffers were in New Jersey. The Respondent called and told Mr. Schaeffer that he was closing his business but that the punch list items would be taken care of. At the time, the Respondent also knew that approximately $1,300 was owed to Jones Industries Screen Enclosures, Inc. The Respondent expected his brother to pay Jones out of the $2,600 due on the Schaeffer contract, leaving $700 to compensate his brother for the punch list work and any warranty work. In fact, there also was $2,705.12 owed to a company named FAFCO Solar, which had subcontracted the solar heating on the Schaeffer contract. The Respondent had forgotten about this debt. FAFCO had billed the Respondent on July 15, 1985, but the Respondent did not pay it or arrange for its payment. FAFCO's second billing never reached the Respondent. The Respondent sent FAFC0, along with his other suppliers and subcontractors, a notice on August 22, 1985, that he was going out of business and that mail should be sent to his home address. On receipt of this notice on August 28, 1985, FAFC0 mailed a second billing to the home address but it was returned on August 30, 1985, marked: "Moved Left No Address". The Respondent's brother did the punch list work to Mr. Schaeffer's satisfaction and sent him a bill for the $2,600 balance due on the contract. Schaeffer never paid. The Respondent's brother never paid the Jones Industries bill (and never got the FAFCO bill). Jones Industries put a lien on the property at 1414 Archer Street for $1,388.75, which the Schaeffers eventually paid. FAFCO did not file a notice to owner and could not claim a lien on the property. FAFC0 never was paid. Both Jones Industries and FAFCO refused to do warranty repairs because they were not timely paid. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent inadequately supervised the Schaeffer job while he was still in business or after he went out of business. After he went out of business, he assigned the contract to a licensed pool contractor, his brother. Eventually, serious problems developed in the Schaeffer's pool at 1414 Archer Street. But the evidence did not prove that the Respondent or his brother were responsible. The serious problems of which the Schaeffers now complain should have been apparent from the outset if caused during construction of the pool. Yet complaints were not registered until much later. Meanwhile, improper maintenance of the pool by the Schaeffers or their pool maintenance contractor, or damage to the pool during maintenance, could have caused the current problems. For six months after the Respondent closed his business and left Ft. Myers, he was traveling in the western part of the country and had no mailing address and did not give one to the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Then, he returned to Florida to a St. Petersburg address which he gave to the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(g) and (m), Florida Statutes (1985), reprimand him for the violation of (g) and fine him $1000 for the violation of (m). RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 19th day of December, 1988. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3468 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Rejected. (The license number was left blank.) Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. The Respondent arranged for payment of the Jones debt but disputes among the Schaeffers, Jones and the Respondent's brother led to Jones imposing a lien on the property which the Schaeffers eventually paid. The Respondent did not make arrangements to pay FAFCO, and that bill remains unpaid. 4.-9. Rejected as contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 500 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas Jackson 5203 109th Way North St. Petersburg, Florida 33708 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
