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 Atlas Pools, Inc., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Thompson in May, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Thompson property for a completed price of $5,940. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, by which time the Thompsons had paid Atlas Pools $5,643. The Thompsons hired another pool contractor to complete the project at additional cost in excess of $2,000. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Perry in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Perry property for a completed cost of $5,770. Work ceased in late July, 1978, after the Perrys had paid Atlas Pools $5,474.50. The Perrys completed the project through self-help and use of another pool contractor at a further cost of $1,566. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Wolters in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Wolters' property for a completed cost of $6,980. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, after the Wolters had paid Atlas Pools $6,631. The Wolters completed the pool through self help at an additional cost in excess of $1,300. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Albert Sentman in June, 1978, to construct a spa on the Sentman property for a completed cost of $5,500. The Sentmans paid Atlas Pools a $550 deposit after which the spa was delivered but not installed. The Sentmans completed the project by other means at an additional cost of $6,137. Respondent abandoned each of the above projects without notice to the customer, who ultimately learned of the company's bankruptcy from a third party source. Each of the four projects described above was completed at a final cost to the purchaser in excess of $900 over the contract price. The company filed a Voluntary Petition of Bankruptcy with the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, on August 1, 1978. Thereafter, on March 7, 1979, the Brevard County Contractors Licensing Board revoked the certificate held by Atlas Pools for a minimum period of one year, with the requirement that financial rehabilitation be demonstrated as a condition of reinstatement. At the time of bankruptcy, Respondent was president of Atlas Pools, Inc., and owned one-third of the stock. He was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, the company's only licensed pool contractor. He is currently employed in pool construction work by a licensed contractor. Proposed findings of fact were submitted by the parties. To the extent these proposed findings have not been adopted herein or are inconsistent with the above findings, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Pool Contractor's License No. RP 0018040 issued to Crawford L. Grove, be suspended until Respondent demonstrates compliance with the financial responsibility standards established by Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (1979). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1980.
The Issue The issues in this matter are those raised by an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent charging the Respondent with violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In particular, these allegations pertain to services performed by the Respondent as a roofing contractor, for the benefit of one Dale Weich. These offenses are more completely described in the Conclusions of Law section to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times to this case, Respondent Rex Alaniz was a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC0042021 by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. Within that time sequence, Alaniz also served as the qualifying agent for Rex Alaniz Roofing and Remodeling Co. On July 27, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract with Dale Weich to effect repairs to Weich's home. That residence was located in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. The substance of the repairs primarily dealt with leaks in a built- up flat room over the garage at the Weich residence, as it joined the house. The main part of the house had a pitch roof covered with terra-cotta tiles. Work was also to be done on the terra-cotta roof. The work on the garage area, where the flat roof was found, included the placement of tar and gravel and the replacement of certain timbers in the garage structure. The roof was leaking in four distinct locations. A copy of the contract may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 7 admitted into evidence. That contract is in the amount of $860.00 which has been paid to the Respondent in exchange for the work. The work was warranted, per the contract, for a period of one year. On July 28, 1983, Respondent commenced work. When the Respondent showed up for work and began the process, he had not obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville Beach. A permit was obtained before the work was completed on July 28, 1983. In failing to obtain the permit initially, Respondent was knowingly or deliberately disregarding the requirements to obtain it, in that he had frequently done work at Jacksonville Beach and was aware of the need to pull the permit before commencing the work. Under the circumstances, the failure to obtain the permit before commencing the work is not found to be an oversight by Respondent. On the same date the work was done, it rained and the roof leaked in the same places it had leaked before repairs were made. There ensued a number of trips on the part of Respondent and his employee to attempt to correct the circumstance. This included adjusting the tiles on the roof to the main house; placing additional tar on the built-up roof over the garage; placing water on the roof by the use of a garden hose, at which time the roof did not leak, and plugging up a small opening at the edge of the roof. On one of the visits by the Respondent following the work of July 28, 1983, it was raining and the roof was leaking and these leaks were observed by the Respondent. Weich tried to contact the Respondent after the events described immediately above, in an effort to get the Respondent to correct the problems. He received no response from Alaniz. Sometime around September 1983, Weich saw the Respondent in a store and told the Respondent that the roof was still leaking and asked that the Respondent return to fix the leaks. Respondent agreed to return to the job, but has yet to honor that agreement. This discussion in the store was not one in which Weich agreed to pay the Respondent additional money to return to the job, as was testified to by the Respondent in the course of the final hearing. At the time of the final hearing, the roof still leaked in those places for which Respondent had contracted to complete repairs.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wesley Ash, currently holds license number CP C015871 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board to authorize Ash to engage in the pool contracting business. Dodd Complaint (Count I). Respondent, Wesley Ash, doing business as Wada Pools, Inc., contracted with Jerry Dodd on or about June 17, 1981, to build a pneumatic concrete pool with skimmer and recirculation system. The contract did not include installation of the concrete deck around the pool. Dodd decided to contract with another independent contractor to install the deck at a lower price than Ash wanted for the job. Ash completed his work by approximately August 1981. He installed the concrete pool shell, finished the inside surface and installed tile along the water line. He then attached the skimmer assembly, plumbing it so that it was level and attaching it to the concrete pool shell by means of the skimmer's PVC plumbing piping. After Ash finished his work, Dodd's other contractor came behind Ash. He used some of the dirt Ash had excavated from the pool site to raise the ground surrounding the pool by approximately six inches above grade. He then poured the concrete deck but failed to encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete in the process of pouring the concrete deck. It was not Ash's practice to make any special arrangements to stabilize the skimmer assembly when he installed both pool and concrete deck. He relies on the skimmer assembly plumbing to stabilize the skimmer assembly until the concrete deck is poured. In pouring the concrete deck, Ash encases the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete to stabilize the skimmer assembly and prevent leakage. In the case of the Poland pool (paragraphs 17 and 22, below), Ash used this method to install both the pool and the concrete deck, and Poland has had no complaint of leakage at the skimmer (nor was there any evidence of leakage at the skimmer). In the case of the Priests' pool (paragraphs 11 through 13, below), Ash followed the same procedures as he did with the Dodd pool, and another contractor poured the concrete deck. As with the Poland pool, there have been no complaints (nor was there any evidence) of leakage at the skimmer. Within approximately one and one-half years after installation of the Dodd pool, Dodd began to notice what he thinks is a leak in his pool. The water level in the Dodd pool drops approximately one-quarter inch per day. But the Department's own expert witness conceded that water loss of between one-eight and one-quarter inch can be explained by evaporation. It was not proved that the Dodd pool is leaking at all. If there is a leak causing a small increment of water loss above loss through normal evaporation, the leak would have to be very small and would be very difficult to detect. Ash and others have tried but have been unable to find a leak at the skimmer of Dodd pool. In approximately summer 1985, Dodd himself dug a hole under the concrete deck to expose the bottom of the skimmer assembly. The excavation revealed an unusual amount of moisture that might be the result of a leak at the skimmer. It also revealed that the contractor who poured the Dodd concrete deck did not encase the skimmer assembly as Ash had thought he would. The Department's expert - a professional engineer with a B.S. degree in civil engineering, an M.S. degree in structural engineering and a Ph.D. degree in environmental engineering - gave his opinion that a residential pool skimmer assembly should be either (1) encased with the concrete of the pool shell or (2) encased with deck concrete which is structurally tied to the concrete pool shell. He opined that the latter method would require either a very rough surface on the pool shell concrete or steel extending from the pool shell in order for the structural tie to be accomplished. But he also conceded that it is possible for deck concrete encasing a skimmer assembly to be sufficient to stabilize the skimmer assembly even without taking any extra measures to accomplish a structural tie. There was no evidence that any building code would require a pool contractor to take these measures to accomplish a structural tie between the pool shell and skimmer assembly. Nor was there any evidence that a reasonably prudent pool contractor (as opposed to a professional engineer) would be expected to take these measures. Based on this evidence, together with all the other evidence taken as a whole, the Department did not prove that Ash was either incompetent or grossly negligent in not taking any extra measurers to accomplish a structural tie between the concrete pool shell and the skimmer assembly. Based on the evidence in this case, the contractor Dodd hired to pour the concrete deck was either incompetent or grossly negligent (assuming he was even a licensed pool contractor a fact not shown by the evidence.) He did not encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete, allowing it to "float" unprotected in the fill under the concrete deck. Settling of the fill could have caused the deck to settle and crack, moving the skimmer assembly and causing a small leak. Ash may have been able to prevent this by warning the contractor to be sure to encase the skimmer assembly with deck concrete when he poured the concrete deck. But there was no evidence that Ash had a duty to advise the other independent contractor Dodd hired or was responsible for the other contractor's incompetence or gross negligence. Ash's failure to advise the other contractor was not incompetence or gross negligence on Ash's part. Dodd has no other complaints about the pool Ash built for him. Priests' Complaint (Count II). On or about October 11, 1984, Ash contracted with Joseph and Rita Priest to build them a pneumatic concrete pool. The Contract included a warranty that the labor, materials and workmanship would be free of defects for one year and that the shell would be structural sound and capable of holding the water for ten years. Like Dodd, the Priests contracted with another independent contractor to install the concrete deck around the pool. Ash was responsible only for placement of decorative "river rock" on top of the deck. Ash finished his work in February 1985. Like Dodd, the Priests complained of water loss from the pool although the Priests noticed the water loss sooner than Dodd (approximately March, 1985). The water level was dropping approximately one-quarter inch per day more than it was dropping in a bucket used as a control. In response to the complaint, Ash sent his employees to the Priests' pool on several occasions. They found no leak at the skimmer. To determine whether the pool's "caretaker system" 1/ was leaking, Ash's employees plugged all but one pair of the caretaker heads. After waiting a period of days, they would try to see whether the rate of water loss changed. They tested all four pairs of caretaker heads on the bottom of the pool and the pair in the spa attached to the pool. No leaks could be found. They did not replace the last two (in the spa), and Mr. Priest had to replace them. As with the Dodd pool, the Department did not prove that the Priests' pool is leaking at all. The Priests continue to complain of water loss of approximately one-quarter inch per day, within the range of water loss from normal evaporation. As with the Dodd pool, a leak responsible for a small increment of water loss above water loss from normal evaporation would be very small and difficult to find, especially if the leak were in the caretaker heads or pipes under the pool leading to the heads. Now the Priests suspect a water leak at the filter. But the Department's expert witness could not find a leak there large enough to account for much water loss. The minor leak at the filter is a normal maintenance item for a pool as old as the Priests' pool. There was no evidence how long it has existed, and there was no evidence that the Priests ever told Ash there was a leak at the filter. The Priests now also complain that one of the caretaker heads does not re-seat properly. But this has nothing to do with the leakage complaint to which Ash is charged with not reasonably responding. Taken as a whole, the evidence did not prove that Ash committed misconduct or deceit by failing to make reasonable response to warranty service requests within a reasonable time, as charged. Nor does the evidence prove misleading or untrue representations, gross negligence, incompetence or fraud in connection with the Priests' pool, as charged. Poland Complaint (Count III). On or about December 9, 1981, Ash entered into a contract with James Poland to build Poland a pneumatic concrete pool and concrete deck. Poland contracted with another independent contractor to build a screen enclosure around the pool. Before construction began, one of Ash's employees asked Poland to sign an addendum to the contract for an additional $235 to pay for foundation footers required to comply with Lee County building code provisions for the screen enclosures. Before Ash signed the initial Poland contract on December 9, 1981, he was unaware of the Lee County Aluminum Code, adopted March 18, 1981. The code requires eight inch foundation footers for "aluminum additions." Another part of the code addresses "screen enclosures with screen roofs known to the industry as birdcage swimming pool enclosures." The language of the code is not explicit that screen swimming pool enclosures are required to meet the foundation requirements for "aluminum additions," and at first Lee County did not interpret the code that way. With a change of personnel in code enforcement, Lee County began to interpret the code that way, and screen swimming pool enclosures Ash had under construction began to fail building inspection for inadequate foundation footers. Ash inquired why and was told about the aluminum code and how it was being interpreted. Ash argued that the interpretation was erroneous but, failing to dissuade enforcement personnel, began to comply. As part of his compliance efforts, Ash had his employees try to secure the contract addendum from Poland. Poland refused to sign the contract addendum, insisting on an opportunity to verify that the additional foundation footers were indeed new building code requirements. There still is a dispute between the parties whether Poland ever agreed to pay the additional $235 after he verified that the footers were being required. (He never signed the contract addendum.) But, in any event, the evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct in connection with the additional $235 charge. 2/ There was some evidence that Ash did not in fact comply with the Lee County Aluminum Code, as he was told it was being interpreted, in his construction of the Poland pool deck. In two places the foundation footers were 6 and 7 inches - deeper than the four-inch normal thickness of a concrete pool deck but short of the eight-inch requirement. But Ash was not charged with failure to comply with the foundation footer requirement. He had no legally sufficient notice that he should be prepared to defend against that charge and was not prepared to defend against that charge. Therefore, no finding is made whether Ash complied with the Lee County Aluminum Code. Ash performed the Poland contract between approximately January 27 and February 26, 1982. In September, 1985, Poland began to notice that some of the tile Ash installed at the waterline around the perimeter of the pool was coming loose. As explained by the Department's expert witness, the concrete deck settled in places, cracking slightly and rotating over the fulcrum created by the wall of the concrete shell of the pool. The rotating action pulled up on the tile attached to the inside of the pool wall in places, loosening the tile. In all, less than 10 percent of the 77 foot perimeter of the Poland pool experienced problems with loose tile. The loose tile easily can be removed and replaced. The minor deck cracking and loose tile problems at the Poland pool are within the normal range for a competently constructed pool under normal conditions of ground settlement. The evidence did not prove that Ash improperly installed the pool deck or that he was incompetent or grossly negligent in the construction of the Poland pool and deck. Besides the loose tile and minor cracks in the concrete deck, the Poland pool had no apparent defects. There also was evidence that the Poland pool was finished with a coating of marcite on the inside surface of the pool shell which was mottled gray in color instead of white. Poland complained persistently about the marcite3 and insisted that Ash make it white. But the discolored marcite was a factory defect of which Ash had been unable to know before he used it. There is no way to make mottled gray marcite white. Ash tried to explain this to Poland but the customer would not be satisfied. Taken as a whole, the marcite evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct. Nor does the evidence prove any of those violations for failure to cure the marcite problem under warranty. First, as already stated, there was no cure. Second, Ash and Poland also had a running dispute whether Poland had paid the full contract price, including the additional $235 for foundation footers, so as to entitle him to any warranty repairs. In light of this genuine dispute, failure to do warranty work, if otherwise a reasonable request, still could not be found to be misconduct, fraud or deceit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint that has been filed against Respondent, Wesley Ash, in these cases. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1986.
Findings Of Fact 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 When the third vinyl liner Brenda Hanna had installed in her swimming pool also ripped, she decided concrete would serve better. A friend referred her to respondent Richard Cobb. Mrs. Hanna and Mr. Cobb entered into a written agreement on March 10, 1977, by which Mr. Cobb undertook, among other things, to cement the pool walls and bottom, in exchange for eighteen hundred eighty dollars ($1,880,00). Plumbing was not covered by this agreement. Approximately one month later two workmen began on the project. Work progressed sporadically. Mr. Cobb himself helped remove the vinyl wall, remove aluminum plates, widen the existing excavation and replace the aluminum plates with the intention of using them as part of the forms for pouring the concrete swimming pool walls. Mr. Cobb also put some steel bars in place, After several telephone calls, on October 17, 1977, Mrs. Hanna wrote respondent saying he had 15 days in which to resume work and 45 days thereafter to finish. On or about November 1, 1977, respondent appeared at the job site. The last day he worked on the project Mrs. Hanna told Mr. Cobb she would call him when she had gotten the plumbing finished. Mrs. Hanna never told Mr. Cobb not to finish the work he began for her. On or about March 10, 1977, Mrs. Hanna wrote a check in favor of DLC, a contracting company, in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00), which she intended as partial payment under the contract she entered into on March 10, 1977. Two weeks after work began, Mr. Cobb asked Mrs. Hanna for more money, saying that DLC had charged him five hundred dollars ($500.00) for getting the job for him. Mrs. Hanna gave him one hundred dollars ($100.00) at that time, After Mrs. Hanna investigated, she again discussed what had happened to the first five hundred dollars ($500.00) with Mr. Cobb who conceded that some bills were paid with the money. On another occasion, Mrs. Hanna advanced one hundred fifteen dollars ($115.00) which Mr. Cobb used to buy steel. Before beginning work Mr. Cobb, who held individual swimming pool servicing contractor's license No. RP 2997 from March 17, 1977, till June 30, 1977, secured building permit No. 77-338 to repair Mrs. Hanna's swimming pool. John F. Viking, an investigator in petitioner's employ since February 15, 1971, issued a notice of violation to Mr. Cobb in 1971 or 1972, when he was told that Mr. Cobb had been contracting without a license. In 1973, on the basis of similar information, he filed a complaint with the state attorney's office which he understood resulted in Mr. Cobb's conviction and probation. Lester A. Davis, a long time employee of the City of Gainesville and presently its acting building official, visited Mrs. Hanna's residence after Mr. Cobb had begun work and asked Mr. Cobb to show him engineering plans. In Mr. Davis' opinion, the plans Mr. Cobb showed him were not being followed. Mr. Davis told Mr. Cobb that he could finish the job only if he associated a contractor licensed to build swimming pools. Mr. Davis inspected and discovered that the bottom drain had been installed. No other plumbing was required to be done before cementing the pool walls and bottom.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for one year. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Cobb, Esquire 1238 Southest 18th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32601 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 78-1553 RICHARD COBB, RP 0029977, 1238 S. E. 18th Terrace, Gainesville, Florida 32601, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1997), by allegedly committing incompetence or misconduct by "poor soil compaction" and by failing to honor the terms of a written warranty.
Findings Of Fact The four-count Administrative Complaint contains factual allegations in 15 numbered paragraphs. Respondent does not dispute paragraphs 1 through 9, 14, and 15. Petitioner is the state agency statutorily charged with regulating pool contracting in the state. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a pool contractor pursuant to license number CP C052509. Respondent's business address is Bazar Pools, Inc., 6214 All America Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32810. On March 6, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Mr. Rex Davidson (the contract). Respondent agreed to construct a residential cantilever deck swimming pool at Davidson's residence located at 2800 Granada Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida (the pool). Mr. Davidson agreed to pay $19,300 for the pool. Respondent completed the pool sometime in April 1998. Mr. Davidson paid the full amount due under the contract. The contract warranted the "pool structure" for the time that Mr. Davidson owned the pool. Sometime in July of 2000, a crack emerged around the top edge of the pool above the tiles that lined the upper edge of the pool. As the crack worsened, the tiles began to fall off the pool. Respondent did not repair the crack and tiles. Mr. Davidson paid approximately $7,025 to a company identified in the record as Blue Diamond to repair the crack and tile. The contract did not include Respondent's license number. Respondent did not obtain a certificate of authority to do business as Bazar Pools, Inc., at the time he entered into the contract. The contract did not contain a written explanation of consumer rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund. Respondent does not dispute Counts II through IV of the Administrative Complaint charging that the acts described in this paragraph violated Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1997). Respondent disputes the charge in Count I of the Administrative Complaint that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct. Paragraphs 10 through 12 of the Administrative Complaint contain the only factual allegations relevant to the charge of incompetence or misconduct. The disputed factual allegations state: Around July of 2000, the pool developed a crack which extended around the entire perimeter and caused the tiles to fall off because of poor soil compaction. The pool's structure is warranted to remain structurally sound for the period of time that it is owned by the original owner. Mr. Davidson contacted Respondent to get the pool repaired, but Respondent failed to take corrective action. The literal terms of allegations in paragraph 10 of the Administrative Complaint led the trier of fact to expect Petitioner to show that Respondent improperly compacted soil under the deck and thereby allowed the deck to settle. However, Petitioner submitted little, if any, evidence pertaining to how Respondent compacted the soil under the deck before Respondent poured the concrete deck. Respondent obtained the three required county inspection approvals before each step in the construction of the pool. The inspections included an inspection to ensure proper soil grade prior to pouring the pool deck. The inspections ensured that Respondent constructed the pool in accordance with stamped engineering drawings that the county required Respondent to file as a prerequisite for a building permit from the county. The vast majority of the evidence that Petitioner submitted during the hearing was relevant to allegations that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct in two ways. First, Respondent arguably constructed the pool shell and deck as a unitized structure so that the crack and tile problems evolved as the deck settled when underlying soil compacted. Second, Respondent arguably failed to honor the warranty in the contract. As a threshold matter, paragraph 10 in the Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct by poor pool construction. Rather, paragraph 10 alleges only that a crack developed in the pool and tiles fell off because of "poor soil compaction." Nevertheless, the parties spent substantial hearing time submitting evidence relevant to allegations of incompetence and misconduct not specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint. In order to prove that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct by poor pool construction, Petitioner relies on expert opinion to show that Respondent constructed the pool and deck as a unitized structure. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent must have connected the concrete pool shell to the concrete deck either by steel rods, identified in the record as rebar, or by a mechanical bond between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the deck. The expert reasoned that settling of the deck could not have caused the crack in the pool unless the deck and pool shell were connected as a unitized body. Several flaws in the expert opinion offered by Petitioner prevent that testimony from reaching the level of clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner's expert did not relate his opinion to facts in evidence. First, Petitioner's expert never inspected the original construction of the pool. The expert visually inspected only the repaired pool and based his opinion on an hour and a-half inspection of the repaired pool. Counsel for Petitioner illustrated the inherent problem in such testimony when he objected to the testimony of one of Respondent's experts on the grounds that the opinion was based on a post-repair inspection. Counsel for Petitioner explained the problem as follows: Objection. Your Honor, [Respondent's expert] is testifying based on his observations of the pool as repaired by Blue Diamond. He never did - he never has made a personal observation of the pool prior to that repair when it was in the condition attributable to [Respondent's] construction method. So, he's testifying without any particular personal knowledge relative to [Respondent's] conduct. Transcript (TR) at 220-221. When Petitioner's expert inspected the post-repair pool, he did not remove the deck to determine whether the top of the pool shell was, in fact, either connected by steel to the deck or otherwise mechanically bonded to the deck. The only competent and substantial evidence in the record of whether the pool shell and the deck were constructed as a unitized structure came from Respondent. Respondent did not use rebar to connect the pool shell to the pool deck. Respondent stopped the rebar approximately two inches below the top of the pool shell. Respondent used mortar, identified in the record as "mud," to smooth variations or undulations, in the top edge of the pool shell and thereby bring the entire top edge of the pool shell up to "dead level." The maximum variation in the top edge of the pool shell prior to leveling did not exceed 1.25 inches. After the mud dried, Respondent intentionally did not clean the top edge of the pool shell. The dirt and debris remaining on the top edge of the pool shell would normally prevent a mechanical bond between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the concrete deck. The construction technique used by Respondent to construct the pool complies with generally accepted standards for the industry. Respondent has constructed over a thousand pools since 1987 using the same or similar construction techniques. He generally constructs large residential pools in "high-end" neighborhoods that cost customers $40,000 or more, but has constructed some commercial pools. Respondent has never had this problem with his other pools and has never had any previous discipline against his license. The expert opinion offered by Petitioner has another flaw that keeps the testimony from being clear and convincing to the trier of fact. The expert concludes that the deck settled, in relevant part, because "the pool cracked and the tile fell off." In an interrelated ratiocination, the expert concludes that the pool cracked and the tile fell off because the deck settled. Petitioner's expert also concluded that the deck settled because he observed cracks in the deck when he visually inspected the post-repair pool in 2004. He concluded from the cracks he observed in 2004 that settling of the deck in 2000 caused the crack in the pool and the tile problems. Petitioner's expert did not measure the cracks or inspect them to determine if any differential existed in the cracks that would suggest soil compaction under the deck. Petitioner's expert is an expert in pool construction, but is not an expert in pool engineering and design. One of Respondent's expert witnesses is an expert in pool engineering and design. He concluded that the deck did not settle in 2000. The characteristics of the cracks in the post-repair deck in 2004 were consistent with cracks caused by heat expansion and contraction from cooling when joints in the concrete were improperly spaced. The cracks did not exhibit differential settling of the deck. The theory that the crack in the pool and tile problems could not have occurred "but for" the settling of the deck is less than clear and convincing. Faulty installation of the tile by subcontractors is a more likely cause of the problems with the pool and the tile. However, Petitioner neither alleged that Respondent engaged in such acts or that Respondent's license is subject to discipline for the acts of his subcontractors. Finally, the testimony of Petitioner's expert is based on subjective standards while the testimony of Respondent's experts is based on intelligible standards published for the entire industry. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct in constructing the pool based on the expert's personal experience and on the way the expert has constructed pools for many years. Respondent's two experts opined that Respondent complied with written standards of workmanship published by the National Spa and Pool Institute in June 1996 (Workmanship Standards). Aside from whether the pool and deck were joined as a unitized structure, Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent "shot" the pool shell about two inches short of where it should have been, used mud to build up the pool shell, and applied tile over the resulting "cold joint" between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the deck. Petitioner's expert opined that laying tile over a cold joint is incompetence and misconduct in his experience. Respondent's experts disagree. They opined that laying tile over a cold joint is the normal practice in the industry. Petitioner's expert agreed that it is commonplace for contractors to lay tile over a cold joint and that problems arise in only one in fifty jobs. The trier of fact has discussed the competing testimony of the parties' experts to illustrate that the burden of proof is the fulcrum of decision in this case. The applicable burden of proof does not require a preponderance of evidence to show that Respondent constructed the pool in a competent manner. Rather, the trier of fact need only find that the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct in constructing the pool. The remaining allegation is that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct by failing to honor the warranty and repair the pool. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent failed to honor the warranty. Sometime in June 2001, Mr. Davidson verbally complained to Respondent that a crack around the pool above the tile line had developed and that tiles around the top edge of the pool were detaching from the pool. Respondent sent a company representative to the site to evaluate the problem. Respondent also sent a service representative to the site to retrieve some of the tiles. Sometime in July 2001, Mr. Davidson again verbally complained to Respondent about the crack and tiles. By letter dated August 8, 2001, Mr. Davidson notified Respondent that a crack had developed behind the tiles sometime in the summer of 2000. The letter stated that the tiles were falling off of the side of the pool. Respondent offered to provide Mr. Davidson with an estimate of the cost of repair. Mr. Davidson elected to have Blue Diamond make the repairs. The pool structure was warranted for the time that Mr. Davidson owned the pool. It is undisputed that the pool shell was well made and water tight. The parties dispute whether the pool structure included the one or two-inch area between the top of the pool shell and the deck, as well as the deck. The contract defined the pool structure by excluding the deck, equipment, tile, and any item other than the pool shell. The definition in the contract is consistent with that in the Workmanship Standards. Petitioner's attempt to rely on a general definition of the term "structure" in a dictionary is not persuasive when considered in the light of the definitions in the contract and the Workmanship Standards. Alternatively, Petitioner argues that the pool structure included the deck and intervening area because all of the parts were constructed as a unitized structure. Based on previous findings, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that the pool shell and deck were constructed as a unitized structure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Counts II through IV of the Administrative Complaint and not guilty of Count I. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Pellegrini, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 John A. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of John A. Shughart, Jr. 500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 305A Maitland, Florida 32751 Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900 Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tim Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued License No. CP C029646. At all tines material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifying agent for Pools by Andrews, Inc., and the owner of that company. On August 21, 1986, George Silvers, a building inspector for the Village of Tequesta, saw people working at a pool site with no identification on the truck parked nearby. When he stopped, he discovered a crew installing- plumbing pipes for a swimming pool. When he asked for identification, Roland R. Androy identified himself as an employee of Pools by Andrews, Inc. Although "piping a pool" does not itself require specialized licensure, Silvers asked Androy if he were a licensed contractor, and Androy said that he was not. By way of further identification, Androy produced a personal card which read "Andy's Elite Pools." Silvers "red flagged" the job stopping construction and filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation. Androy was an employee of Pools by Andrews, Inc., for approximately one year in 1974. He returned to Florida and again became an employee of Pools by Andrews, Inc. in February, 1985. During the remainder of that calendar year Androy drew a regular weekly salary from that company, received holiday pay, and drove a company vehicle. Taxes were deducted from his salary check, and the company provided him with health insurance. Androy was a fast worker and frequently finished piping pools early in the day at which time he was given odd jobs to perform for the company such as building shelves in the warehouse. Androy decided that he could make the same amount of money and substantially shorten his work day if he were paid on a piecework basis rather than for an eight hour work day. That way he would also be able to 'moonlight' by using his free time performing maintenance and repair work for swimming pool owners. Respondent agreed to pay Androy on the basis of piecework rather than a 40-hour work week. Since January 1, 1986, Androy appears at Pools by Andrews, Inc., at 6:00 a.m. six days a week at which time he is given a list of pools to plumb that day. All materials and equipment necessary to perform the work are supplied by the Respondent. When Androy finishes, he goes home. Every Friday he gives Respondent a list of pools that he piped that week, and Respondent pays Androy by check. Because Androy wanted to be free to leave when he finishes that day's work, he no longer drives a company truck but rather drives his own truck so he does not have to return the truck before he can go home. Under the new salary arrangement, he is paid by the job and no longer receives a regular weekly salary or holiday pay or health insurance. Further, Respondent has ceased deducting withholding tax and social security taxes from Androy's paycheck. The card which Androy gave to Inspector Silver is a card that he used prior to moving to Florida. He had new cards printed with his Florida address and telephone number. He uses them when persons ask how they can get in touch with him. Respondent had no knowledge of Androy having or using such a card. As a certified pool contractor, Respondent is aware of the requirements for licensure, that is, installation of a swimming pool must be done by a licensed contractor. However, there is no requirement for licensure for that portion of the installation known as piping a pool. Rather, that work can be performed by anyone under the supervision of a licensed contractor. Further, no separate permit is required for that "plumbing" portion of pool installation. All permits for the job in question were obtained by Pools by Andrews, Inc., pursuant to Respondent's state licensure. No other permits were necessary for the job, including the work done for Respondent by Androy. Respondent (like Androy) believes that Androy is an employee of his and not an independent contractor or a subcontractor. There is no intent on Respondent's part to evade he state licensure requirements. Respondent has had no other disciplinary actions filed against him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4395 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, and 4-6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of tact numbered 2 has been rejected as not being supported by any evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 7, and 10 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5, and 11 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Edward W. Andrews 8300 Resource Drive Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent was registered with Petitioner as a pool contractor, Registration No. RP0017996, from January to June 30, 1974 (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.) On February 22, 1974, Respondent entered into a contract with John G. Hartong, 813 Kings Bay Drive Southwest, Crystal River, Florida, to construct a screened swimming pool for the total price of $7,331.25. Construction of the pool began in July of 1974. Prior to that time, Respondent sent his foreman to the building department of Citrus County to obtain a building permit for the job because the county had issued such permits for work in Crystal River in the past. In actuality, the City of Crystal River began issuing such permits for construction work in that community commencing June 15, 1974. Neither Citrus County nor the City of Crystal River issued a permit for the work at the Hartong residence. Respondent assumed that his foreman had obtained the necessary permit and did not inquire into the matter further. City officials of Crystal River discovered the job in progress in late July. At that time, the gunite for the pool was about two-thirds completed and it would have been impossible to inspect unless everything was "pulled out". Respondent had been ill during this period and receiving daily medical checkups. As a result, he had entrusted his foreman with a great deal more responsibility than usual. Respondent normally had five to ten pool jobs in progress at the same time. In August, 1974, Respondent suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. Work apparently ceased on the Hartong pool at this point or somewhat earlier and, after numerous attempts to contact Respondent as to completion of the work, Mr. Hartong secured another contractor to do so. However, this firm required that Hartong obtain a release from Respondent prior to taking over the work. Hartong therefore visited Respondent in the hospital and the parties settled the matter by executing a release. Prior to entering the hospital, Respondent had been on the Hartong job on only two different occasions and his first contact from city officials came just before he was hospitalized. After the parties had entered into their settlement, Respondent did no further work on the pool. In October, 1974, the building official of Crystal River advised Respondent by correspondence that he should obtain a permit for the work and furnished him an application for a local Certificate of Competency as a contractor. Although Respondent submitted an application for such a certificate, the city tabled the application pending his compliance with city ordinances concerning permit requirements for the Hartong pool. In view of his release from Hartong, Respondent did not pursue the matter any further. Hartong had been particularly disturbed by the fact that electrical wires from a switch on the wall of his house ran to the pool deck and when the switch was on, the wires were live. He was fearful that his children might put them in the water and create a shock hazard (Testimony of Pulver, Hartong, duPlanti, Respondent; Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3, Petitioner's Exhibits 4 & 6.) About the middle of 1974, Respondent entered into a contract with Craig Marlett to build a pool. It was not established at the hearing as to whether this work was to be performed in Citrus County or within the city limits of Crystal River. Respondent testified that there was no building permit obtained for this work, but that he had subcontracted the job to his foreman and provided him with funds to obtain a proper permit. However, he did not check to see if one had been obtained (Testimony of Respondent, Pulver, Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Approximately February 28, 1975, pursuant to a pool contract with Jack Freeman, Ocala, Florida, Respondent commenced work by excavating the hole on the site. He testified that he was not aware that he did not have a building permit when he began this work, but obtained it the following Monday. In fact, the application for a building permit to Alachua County was submitted on March 4, 1975, a Tuesday, and the permit was issued on March 10, 1975. Article XIV, Section V, Zoning Regulations for Alachua County, Florida requires that no building shall be constructed, reconstructed, altered or extended unless a building permit has been issued, indicating that such use complies with county requirements (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 5 & 8.) Respondent has been building swimming pools for approximately 10 years. His experience includes construction of approximately 700 pools (Testimony of Respondent.)
Recommendation That the allegations against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Linn, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida James A. Shook, Esquire 415 North West First Avenue Post Office Box 924 Ocala, Florida 32670
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department, is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Mike H. Kargar, d/b/a Kargar Construction, Inc., was licensed as a Florida State Certified Building Contractor and a Florida State Certified Pool/Spa Contractor, having been issued license numbers CBC 37867 and CPC 52530 respectively. His licensure status for each license is designated as "Current, Active." The Department's records establish that at no time material hereto did Kargar Construction apply for or obtain a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida. On or about July 14, 1999, Respondent, doing business as Premier Pools, entered into a contract with Ronald and Gina Steger (the Stegers) for construction of a residential swimming pool to be located at 466 Champagne Circle, Port Orange, Florida. The contract price was $26,469.00. Respondent was paid in full by the Stegers for the construction of the swimming pool at their residence. While Respondent verbally informed Mr. Steger about the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, the contract does not contain a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Respondent has constructed thousands of residential pools during his career. Respondent proceeded with the construction of the Stegers' pool in the same manner as with all other pools he constructed. That is, he reviewed the contract documents, visited the job site to inspect the site during the various stages of construction, and was in charge of scheduling. As is his typical practice, Respondent also had superintendents who oversaw the project and subcontractors who performed most of the actual work on the excavation and construction of the pool. Respondent visited the Stegers' job site at least twice. He went to the pool site before the pool was "shot." During that visit, he did not observe anything that raised concerns regarding the soil conditions that existed at the Steger residence. He inspected the Stegers' job site after the shell was poured and did not observe any problems. He also observed the control joints for the concrete for the pool deck. The spacing of the control joints at the Stegers' job site was the same as his company usually utilizes in constructing pool decks. Robert Fleming is the owner/operator of Fleming Excavating, which is in the business of excavating for swimming pools. He has been in the business of excavating pools for about ten years and has excavated between 5,000 and 6,000 pools. He and persons who work for him performed the excavation of the Stegers' pool. As is typical on a pool excavation job, Mr. Fleming performed what he refers to as "LDS" on the Stegers' pool. That is, layout, dig, steel, and be ready for inspection. He staked out the pool, determining its shape, then excavated the dirt. After the dirt was excavated, he and his workers put in the steel for inspection. In digging the Stegers' pool, Mr. Fleming did not encounter any unusual subsurface soil conditions to give him any indication that there would be problems for the pool in the future. About two weeks after the project was completed, Mr. Steger observed what he perceived to be a half inch rotation of the pool shell in the ground. When the pool was initially filled with water, the water level followed the grout line of the tile around the pool. After a couple of weeks, the water level against the pool tile furthest from the home was at a different level than the tile toward the area of the pool closest to the home. This was reported to Respondent. Mr. Steger then noticed a crack in the pool deck on the backside of the pool. He described the shape of the initial crack to be the same shape as the backside of the pool shell in the decking. Other cracks formed. One is evident where pieces of tile around the pool shell have come off at the place where the crack in the pool deck meets the pool shell. The cracking is all on the deck, not in the pool itself. A representative of Respondent's company went to the Stegers' home in March of 2000 and documented on a warranty form as follows: Southwest deck, [less than] 1/32 separation around the perimeter south of beam. Northwest near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion northeast. Near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion. Between December 1999 and March 2000, Mr. Steger made two other requests for warranty work. These conditions were corrected by Respondent and signed off as satisfactorily completed by Mr. Steger. Sometime in the year 2000, Respondent became aware of the cracking problems in the Stegers' deck. He went to the Stegers' home and met with Mr. Steger. He observed that the cracks were in a circular type of pattern following the pool shape. Respondent offered to repair the deck cracks by "v- ing" out the cracks and inserting a urethane 500 product to stop the cracks from coming through. Once that process was completed, Respondent proposed that he would then "respray and re-acrylic the affected area of the deck." Respondent has used this process numerous times to cover cracks in decks, and once it is used, the cracks do not show. Mr. Steger did not agree to Respondent's proposal to repair the cracking of the deck area as illustrated by his testimony at hearing: Mr. Kargar came out and told me that he would, in fact, grind out the concrete in the cracks themselves, fill them in with some sort of epoxy substance in order to mask the cracking. However, that does not address the original problem of the pool shell shifting and the deck moving away from the pool. So, no, I did not accept that as a solution to the problem. Richard Kushner is a civil engineer with a concentration in geotechnical engineering and construction engineering. He works for Universal Engineering Science (Universal). Mr. Steger called Universal which conducted an investigation as to why the pool deck was cracking. A field representative from Universal went to the Stegers' home and performed four manual auger borings into the soil to test the type and condition of the soil under the pool deck, ran density and compaction tests to see how tight the soils were underneath the pool deck, and observed the cracking and the cracking patterns in the concrete. Mr. Kushner did not personally go to the Stegers' as it is customary in the field of geotechnical and construction engineering to review data, do whatever analysis is necessary, and come to a conclusion using an investigative report. Regarding the cause of the pool deck cracking, Mr. Kushner had three concerns: the compaction of the soil underneath the concrete slab was less than 90 percent, whereas the industry standard is 95 percent; evidence of wood rot was found at one of the auger borings, indicating that the original soils were not well stripped and cleared of debris, such as sticks and roots; and insufficient spacing of control joints in the concrete. Mr. Kushner concluded that the contractor and subcontractors who constructed the pool deck were responsible for the cracking in the pool deck. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that two of the three concerns, i.e., the soil compaction and the evidence of organic debris, are circumstances that may cause future problems but were not the cause of the current problems with the deck cracking. Mr. Kushner also acknowledged that the pool cracking is a problem which is cosmetic or aesthetic in nature and that the cracks in the pool deck are not structural problems. Universal's investigation and Mr. Kushner's report relate exclusively to the pool deck, not to the pool shell or the subsoil conditions under the pool shell. Mr. Kushner was not aware when he wrote the report relied upon by Petitioner that there was an issue regarding whether the pool shell was shifting; was not involved in any discussions about the pool shell; and was not aware that the cracks in the pool deck follow the shape of the pool. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that any shifting of the pool shell could be caused by soil conditions underneath the pool shell and could be the cause of deck cracking that followed the shape of the pool. However, the investigation conducted by Universal and his report were exclusively related to the cracking of the pool deck and did not examine anything regarding the pool shell itself. As of July 18, 2003, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled $384.63.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing a $100.00 fine to be deposited in the Construction Industries Recovery Fund for a violation of Section 489.1425, issue a notice of noncompliance pursuant to Section 489.119(6)(e), and require Respondent to pay $384.63 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS 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 22nd day of August, 2003.
