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
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a registered pool contractor should be suspended or revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint. This proceeding arises out of Respondent's alleged failure to remedy defects in a swimming pool that she built in 1981 which resulted in disciplinary action by the Leon County Contractor's Licensing and Examination Board; for failing to remedy defects in another pool that she built in 1981 whereby she allegedly made fraudulent representations and failed to honor a warranty; and for constructing a pool in 1982 after her Certificate of Competency had been revoked by the Leon County Contractor's Licensing and Examination Board. Respondent appeared at the hearing without counsel, and was thereupon advised of her rights and the procedures applicable to an administrative proceeding. She indicated that she understood such rights and elected to represent herself. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of nine witnesses and submitted 22 exhibits in evidence. Respondent testified in her own behalf, but did not submit any documentary evidence. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order has been fully considered, and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact, and are specifically rejected.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Laura H. Eubanks is a state registered commercial pool contractor who operates Eubanks Company Big Bend Pool Builders, Tallahassee, Florida. She was originally licensed in 1975 and remained licensed at all pertinent times relative to this proceeding, but her license was in a delinquent status as of July 1, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On May 2, 1981, Respondent entered into an agreement with Thomas V. and Barbara J. Mulqueen, Jr., 6719 Johnston Loop, Tallahassee, Florida, for the sale and installation of a swimming pool at their residence for the amount of $6,725.63. On September 22, 1981, Mr. Mulqueen filed a complaint against Respondent with the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board. Mr. Olin Williams, Supervisor of Inspections for the Board, investigated the complaint and found that staples were protruding underneath the pool liner, that a water pipe leaked at the pump, apron or deck concrete cracks were caused by curing tension at inside corners, about 35 percent of the concrete deck was darker in color than the remainder of the deck, an improperly placed outlet for the pool drain permitted seepage under the pool liner, and that repairs to a neighbor's fence and the owner's driveway had not been completed. He classified those discrepancies as pertaining to workmanship. In addition, he determined that there had been a violation of the health code in that a septic tank had been broken by workmen and waste sewage had flowed into the pool excavation for a period of several days. The owner was seeking to have Respondent correct the problems and complete the job. Inspector Williams contacted the Respondent on October 12, 1981, and, although she told him that she would come to his office that day and bring the individual responsible for the job, she failed to do so. No final inspection of the work had been requested by Respondent. (Testimony of Williams, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) By letter dated November 12, 1981, Respondent was advised by the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board that a formal hearing had been scheduled on the complaint for December 3, 1981. A copy of the complaint and the Building Inspector's Report was enclosed, and she was advised of her right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. In fact, the hearing by the Board was held on December 4, 1981, at which the Mulqueens were present and presented their complaint, and Inspector Williams informed the Board of his investigation and subsequent actions. Respondent was not present at the hearing, although the certified mail receipt reflected the signature of "L. H. Eubanks." At the December 4th meeting, the Board voted to suspend Respondent's license with the provision that the Board would not consider reinstatement unless repairs to the Mulqueen pool were made within thirty days after December 9, 1981, and if not, then the Board would consider permanent revocation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6) By letter of January 12, 1982, the Board advised Respondent of the suspension of her license as a result of a hearing held on December 3, 1981. (No explanation was provided by Petitioner as to the discrepancy in the minutes of the Board meeting which reflected a date of December 4, 1931, and the letters sent to Respondent which stated that the hearing had been held on December 3, 1981.) Respondent was advised in the letter that the Board would not consider any application for reinstatement of Respondent's license unless repairs were effected to the Mulqueen pool within thirty days from receipt of the letter. She was further advised that if they had not been so completed, the Board would consider permanent revocation of her license, but if they had been completed within the required time, the Board would consider a written application for reinstatement at its meeting scheduled for January 28, 1982. This letter was hand delivered to Respondent's place of business on January 18, 1982. On January 20, 1982, Respondent telephoned Inspector Williams and stated that she would seek legal counsel and be at the Board meeting on January 28. She indicated to him that she had had some personal problems due to the illness of her sisters, and also had been the subject of theft (although a memo of Williams reflecting the telephone call was dated January 20, 1981, it was apparent from his testimony that the call was made on January 20, 1982.) (Testimony of Williams, Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 18) The Licensing Board met on January 28, 1982, and determined that Respondent's license would be revoked on February 26, 1982, if the previously noted defects had not been corrected. By letter dated February 3, 1982, she was advised by the Board of this fact and that the Board would meet again on February 25 concerning the matter. On February 25, the Board revoked Respondent's license. She was not present at the meeting. She was advised of this action by Letter of the Board, dated March 4, 1982. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 8-10) By contract dated July 15, 1981, Respondent agreed to install a swimming pool for Mr. and Mrs. Rex Tyler at their residence in Tallahassee, Florida, for the sum of $23,784.91. The project included installation of aluminum fencing and a brick wall, together with various items of pool equipment. The agreement provided that the contractor would remedy any defects in workmanship without cost, provided written notice was provided within one year after connection of the filter. After the pool was built and paid for by the Tylers, it was found that several problems existed. A pool light continuously went on and off improperly, the motor of the pool sweep leaked, the bottom drain was not adequately secured and would be knocked off by operation of the pool sweep, step tiles were not complete, one tile popped loose, and water faucets leaked. The primary problem, however, was that the main drain would not circulate water on the bottom of the pool. The Respondent was notified of these problems by the owners and repaired some of them over the course of time, but was unable to fix the pool light or the main drain. In this regard, Respondent called upon Walter Swans, another licensed pool contractor, who determined that both the light and the drain were stopped up with "marble" finish. The Tylers were obliged to spend $312.74 to pay Swann's bill and for a plumber to repair the leaking faucets. (Testimony of McCausland, A. Tyler, Clemens, Swann, Petitioner's Exhibits 21-23) By agreement dated May 28, 1982, Respondent contracted with Charles and Brenda Short for the installation of a swimming pool at 3249 Baldwin Drive West, Tallahassee, Florida, for a price of $6,809.20. During the course of construction, Mr. Short inquired of Respondent as to the need for a building permit. She initially told him that she would get one, but later when Short asked her again about the matter, she told him that if he didn't want one it would be all right with her because otherwise it would hold up completion of the pool. Short told her that that was all right with him. He was not familiar with permit requirements. After the walls of the pool had been finished, heavy rains caused the sides of the pool to partially collapse. Inspector Williams was notified of the problem and he found that the work was being done without the required permit. He therefore posted a stop work order at the construction site. On September 1, 1982, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of contracting without a license in violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in the Leon County Court, Case No. 82MM2702. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of six months. The Shorts had paid Respondent a total of $4,000 on the contract price at the time work was stopped on the pool project. They eventually settled the matter with Respondent by agreement. (Testimony of Brenda Short, Charles Short, Courtney, Williams, Petitioner's Exhibits 12, 19-20) In a civil proceeding filed by the Mulqueens against Respondent in the Leon County Circuit Court, Case No. 82-68 the parties entered into a joint stipulation of settlement under which Respondent agreed by promissory note to pay the Mulqueens the sum of $2400 with interest by 24 monthly payments of $100.00 commencing January 1, 1983. On January 27, 1983, the Leon County Contractors Licensing Examination Board reinstated Respondent's license, subject to a 12 month probationary period. By letter October 24, 1983, Mr. Mulqueen advised the County Building Inspector that Respondent had only made two payments on the settlement agreement as of March 1983. (Testimony of Courtney, Petitioner's Exhibits 13-16) Section 2C, Leon County Ordinance No. 74-22, provides that its Contractors Licensing and Examination Board has the duty to suspend or revoke "authorized contractor" certificates for violation of the ordinance, violation of the County Building and Zoning Codes, or violation of any other state, municipal, or county law upon due cause shown to the Board after a hearing. Section 1E provides that the Board must provide the certificate holder with written notice of its intent to consider the revocation or suspension of the certificate, and afford him a hearing before the Board, and that all decisions concerning suspension of revocation of certificates shall be in writing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) Respondent testified at the hearing that she had had continuing financial problems commencing a number of years ago when some of her employees were building pools "on the side" with her materials. During the time that problems arose in connection with the Mulqueen and Tyler pools, she was preoccupied with serious personal problems involving her sisters, one of whom died of cancer and the other having been in a mental hospital. She acknowledged that she should have corrected the customer complaints and regrets that she did not do so. Respondent further stated that although she attempted to pay her note to the Mulqueens, her financial situation was such that she was unable to continue meeting the payments. Although she received notice of the various hearings before the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board, she testified that she had not been thinking of the consequences and didn't even read the letters of notification which were sent to her. She also acknowledged entering into the contract with the Shorts because she was "desperate" for money to pay her various creditors. (Testimony of Eubanks)
Recommendation That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order suspending the registration of Respondent Laura H. Eubanks as a pool contractor for a period of three months. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Laura H. Eubanks 1421 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NOS. 21738, 20754, 25386 LAURA H. EUBANKS DOAH CASE NO. 83-2362 737 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Respondent. /
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was licensed as a certified pool/spa servicing contractor, having been issued license no. CP C053918, and Respondent was the qualifying agent of Sun Technical Systems, Inc., a Florida corporation. In 1981, Nancy Morasch moved to Florida and purchased a single-family home, which did not contain a pool, at 1210 Sunshine Tree Boulevard in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. The following year, she had a swimming pool built without a spa. On or about February 2, 1998, Morasch sought to have her pool refurbished and add a spa. She received a written proposal by Larry Boles to perform the work, including the addition of a spa, for $22,479.00. Morasch declined to contract with Mr. Boles. Shortly thereafter, Morasch received a written proposal from Respondent to perform the refurbishment and build the spa. Respondent bid $18,800 to complete the job and indicated that he would finish by December 25, 1998. On October 17, 1998, Morasch entered into a written contract with Respondent on behalf of Pleasure Pool Services, Inc., a Florida corporation, for a price of $18,800.00. Morasch was informed by Respondent that he was licensed to construct the spa. The contract included a one-year warranty for defects in workmanship. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract, and the contract did not contain a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Pursuant to the contract, Morasch made payments to Pleasure Pool Services, Inc., on or about the following dates and in the following amounts: October 17, 1998, $2,000.00; November 27, 1998, $5,500.00; and December 12, 1998, $7,500.00; for a total of $15,000.00. On November 27, 1998, Respondent began performing work pursuant to the contract. By Christmas Eve 1998, the work remained substantially incomplete. In December 1998, Respondent hired Anthony Keegan to remove the existing tile in Morasch's pool and install new tile around the perimeter of Morasch's pool and spa. Although Keegan usually required payment in advance, due to his long-standing relationship with Respondent, Keegan accepted a partial payment of $500.00 from Respondent and bought materials for the job on credit. Respondent never communicated to Keegan that he considered Keegan's work unsatisfactory in any way, nor did Morasch consider Keegan's work unsatisfactory in any way, and Keegan's work was a necessary part of the project. Respondent refused to pay Keegan the balance so in late January 1999, after a threat of lien by Keegan, Morasch paid him $965.68, the total balance owed him by Respondent. In January 1999, Respondent sub-contracted Magic Marcite to perform the plastering work on Morasch's pool and spa. Magic Marcite performed the work over three days ending on January 25, 1999. Respondent never communicated to Magic Marcite that he considered its work to be unsatisfactory in any way, nor did Morasch consider Magic Marcite's work unsatisfactory in any way, and Magic Marcite's work was also a necessary part of the project. Again, Respondent was threatened with a lien by Magic Marcite and paid them the $1,500.00 balance due from Respondent in three installments, on or about April 28, May 30, and June 25, 1999. From late January 1999, until August 1999, Respondent neglected to perform further work despite complaints by Morasch that the pool and spa were losing substantial amounts of water and the pool deck concrete was cracking and sinking. Furthermore, and contrary to the contract negotiations between Respondent and Morasch, Respondent positioned the spa level to the pool deck and not elevated. In addition, the jets in the spa as built by Respondent were positioned too low. In June 1999, Morasch retained counsel to assist her in her efforts to have Respondent complete the project. In July 1999, with her attorney's assistance, Morasch succeeded in getting Respondent to agree to perform further work to address the cracked tile and deck concrete. In August 1999, Respondent hired a leak specialist to repair various water leaks. In September 1999, Respondent replaced some of the cracked tile and removed some of the cracked deck concrete. In October 1999, Respondent repaired more tile. Thereafter, Respondent abandoned the project. Morasch complained to the National Spa and Pool Institute and Petitioner. Thereafter, she hired Acryla-Crete to repair the pool and spa and paid them $14,135.85 upon completion. Morasch paid attorney's fees totaling $2,304.17. Although Respondent failed to obtain any building permit or inspections for any work on Morasch's swimming pool and spa, Seminole County required them. Sun Technical Systems, Inc., has never been issued a license as a qualified business organization. As of August 8, 2001, Petitioner's cost of investigation and prosecution in this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $771.77.
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, as follows: Finding that disciplinary action against Respondent is warranted for the violation of: Count I, Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(m); Count II, Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(o); Count III, Section 489.129(1)(f); Count IV, Sections 489.129(1)(i) and 489.119(2); Count V, Sections 489.129(1)(i) and 489.119(6)(b); Count VI, Sections 489.129(1)(i) and 489.1425; Count VII, Section 489.129(1)(j); Count VIII, Section 489.129(1)(m); and Count IX, Section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. Requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $771.77, plus any such further costs as may have been or may be incurred by Petitioner after August 8, 2001, through the taking of final agency action. Requiring Respondent to pay restitution in the amount of $15,231.70 to Nancy Morasch, this amount of restitution calculated as the total amount paid by Morasch to Pleasure Pools ($15,000.00), Anthony Keegan ($965.68), Magic Marcite ($1,626.00), Michelle Kane ($2,304.17), and Acryla-Crete ($14,135.85), minus the $18,800.00 contract price. Permanently revoking Respondent's certified swimming pool/spa servicing contractor license number CP C053918. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 29th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Dave Hopkins 4441 North Fort Christmas Road Christmas, Florida 32709 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robert Crabill, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact William R. Rifenburgh, Jr. is licensed as a certified general contractor (License No. CG C011375), certified pool contractor (License No. CP C010307) and registered pool contractor (License No. RP 0023263). Respondent held the above licenses at all times material to this action. In early 1978, Rifenburgh entered an oral contract with Personalized Construction Company to install a Nautilus Spa at a house this company was constructing at 9186 Northwest 21st Street, Coral Springs. Respondent then installed the spa exclusive of deck, electrical and brick work. Periodic inspections of the spa project were conducted between February and December, 1978, by the City of Coral Springs Building Department. The facility did not pass final inspection because of electrical wiring deficiencies and the purchaser's contention that the spa lost water. A follow-up final inspection has never been requested. The house was purchased by Nathaniel Gerold in March, 1978. Gerold paid about $5,200 to Personalized Construction Company for the spa, but later recovered this amount in a judgment against Personalized Construction. Between May and December, 1978, Gerold called Respondent numerous times regarding the inability of the spa to hold water. Nothing substantial was done by Respondent during those months. However, Respondent did return to the site in January, 1979, at the urging of the Coral Springs Building Department, but was refused access to the property by Gerold. As a result of Gerold's complaints, the City of Coral Springs Building Department withheld Respondent's building permit privileges beginning in March, 1980. However, no hearing was held nor was formal disciplinary action taken by the municipality. Respondent's building permit privileges were restored by the Building Department in February, 1981, on advice of the City Attorney. Respondent and Personalized Construction had several disagreements regarding the amount and schedule for payments to Respondent. However, Respondent was paid in May, 1978, by Personalized Construction for completion of the project, and was not a party to the lawsuit wherein Gerold recovered from Personalized Construction for the defective spa. Personalized Construction subcontracted the deck work, and this subcontractor was responsible for breaking some of the spa plumbing Respondent had installed. Although the underground pipes were repaired, they remain a possible source of water loss. It was not established if the current water loss is occurring through these pipes, from leaks in the prefabricated spa or through normal evaporation.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrew M. Chansen, Esquire Suite 108 2000 East Oakland Park Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed general contractor and pool contractor. He is employed by Sally Dysart, Inc., and is currently the qualifying contractor for that company. Additionally, Respondent has served as qualifier for ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc. On June 6, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Theresa Pica to construct a swimming pool at her North Lauderdale residence. On June 9, 1981, Respondent obtained a permit from the City of North Lauderdale to construct the Pica pool. The permit indicated that ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc., was the contractor. The contract specified that the pool would measure 16 x 32 x 3 x 6 1/2 feet, with stainless steel walls. The contract allowed "minor variations in dimensions . . ." and provided that, "Dysart is authorized to use its discretion in making changes or additions if the customer is not immediately available." The pool as installed was 8 feet rather than 6 1/2 feet deep, and the walls were of aluminum rather than stainless steel. These changes were not approved by Theresa Pica and she complained to Petitioner regarding these changes and other problems which are not relevant to the charges herein. This was an 18 inch change in pool depth and could not be considered a minor variation in dimensions, nor could the change in materials be considered insignificant. Respondent should have, but did not, obtain the owner's concurrence before substituting the 8 foot aluminum pool for the 6 1/2 foot steel pool, which the contract called for. This installation was also held to be in violation of Broward County Ordinance Section 9-14(b)(9), by the local board having jurisdiction. Respondent was not properly registered as the qualifying agent for Sally Dysart, Inc., at the time of this project. He was registered as the qualifier for Ark beginning in 1977, but his application to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., was not received by Petitioner until November 1981 and not issued until December 1981. A Julius Kaplan was also a qualifier for Sally Dysart, Inc., but his application was not received by Petitioner until October 1981. Sally Dysart, Inc., was therefore not qualified by a licensed pool contractor at the time this company undertook the Pica project. The permit was improperly drawn on Ark Pool Service, Inc., by Respondent since Ark was not a party to the Pica contract. Respondent demonstrated that the administrator for Sally Dysart, Inc., was attempting to secure a qualifier for this company between April and December 1981. Thus, while some effort had been made to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., this had not been accomplished at the time the Pica project was undertaken. Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with James J. Mirrione to install a spa for him at his residence in Boca Raton. The permit was obtained by Respondent on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., on April 23, 1981. As noted above, Respondent was not a qualifier for Sally Dysart until December 1981. No final inspection of the Mirrione installation was ever made. Respondent believed that officer personnel at Sally Dysart, Inc., had arranged for such inspection, but it was either not requested or requested but not performed. On June 25, 1981, Warren Schober contracted with Sally Dysart, Inc., to construct a pool at his Miami residence. He negotiated the contract with a Milton Wolf who he understood to be the sales manager for Sally Dysart, Inc. The project was completed, but Schober encountered problems with a defective light and leaks in the pool. The difficulties were eventually corrected and Schober is now satisfied with the installation. In late August 1981, Milton Wolf agreed to sell Dr. Ronald Scott a swimming pool for $5,970. Scott made an initial payment of $3,970 to Milton Wolf by cashier's check dated September 8, 1981. Scott believed he was dealing with Sally Dysart, Inc., since Wolf held himself out as a representative of that company. Although he had some reservations about making the check payable to Milton Wolf personally, he had contacted a Better Business Bureau to determine that Sally Dysart, Inc., was a reputable company. Further, Wolf was available when he telephoned him at the Sally Dysart, Inc., offices. Sally Dysart, Inc., later disclaimed the Wolf agreement but offered to honor it if Scott would turn over the balance due. However, Scott rejected this offer and it was later withdrawn. He did not receive the pool or return of his initial payment. The evidence did not establish whether or not Sally Dysart, Inc., approved the contract for sale of the pool negotiated by Wolf. However, there was no construction contemplated and therefore no active involvement by Respondent in his capacity as construction supervisor. On July 31, 1981, Milton Wolf, on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Mr. William D. Black for the sale and installation of a swimming pool at the latter's Miami resident. By check dated August 28, 1981, Black made an initial payment of $4,585 to Wolf. Black left the payee portion of the check blank at Wolf's request on the representation that he would use a stamp to supply the Dysart firm name. Wolf later filled in his own name, cashed the check and absconded. Black had no reason to distrust Wolf as he had communicated with Wolf at Sally Dysart, Inc., and had checked on the company through the Better Business Bureau. Wolf held himself out as sales manager and this was not repudiated by Sally Dysart, Inc., until after Wolf absconded. Respondent obtained a permit for the Black project on October 13, 1981, and some of the initial approvals were made. However, by letter dated September 22, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc. (by its president, Sally Dysart), advised Black that the company would attempt to complete the project only if he would pay the balance of all payments due. This letter also disclaimed responsibility for Wolf's representations. In response, Black demanded that Sally Dysart, Inc., honor the contract and proposed that remaining payments be placed in escrow pending satisfactory completion. This proposal was rejected, and Black did not obtain the pool nor was his $4,585 "deposit" returned. Respondent sought to establish that Milton Wolf was not authorized to act on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., but that he was merely present in the Dysart offices as a potential business partner. His contact with customers was purportedly limited to investigation of leads and company business potential. However, the testimony of a former Dysart employee established that Wolf did make sales and brought in cash receipts to the company prior to his defalcation. Therefore, regardless of any private understanding between Sally Dysart, Inc., and Milton Wolf, the latter was holding himself out to the public as a company representative with the knowledge and approval of Sally Dysart, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's contractor licenses for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May 1984.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified pool contractor, holding license number CP CO27486. Respondent obtained his certificate in October, 1983. His only prior discipline consists of a letter of guidance in late 1989 or early 1990. At all material times, Respondent was qualifying agent for Gold Medallion Pcol, Inc. On March 27, 1986, Respondent and Mr. and Mrs. Don Burson entered into a contract for the construction cf a swimming pool at the Bursons' residence. The Bursons had purchased the residence while it was still under construction in May or June, 1985. The lot was low and had required fill. Clearly visible behind the lot is a large marshy wetland. The contract called for the Bursons to pay $16,315 for the construction of a 20' by 40' concrete lap pool with depths of 3' at either end and 6' in the center. Paragraph 4 of the contract provides: The Owner is responsible for increased costs incurred by the Contractor due to underground conditions which may be encountered during construction, such as but not limited to, muck, inadequate soil-bearing capacity, and excessive ground water. The Contractor, upon encountering such conditions, shall notify the Owner of their existence and give him an approximate cost estimate to rectify the problem. The Owner shall have five (5) days from the receipt of the approximate cost estimate to instruct the Contractor not to proceed with the pool. . . . If the Contractor determines that additional testing is required prior to furnishing approximate costs estimates to determine the exact nature or extent of the underground condition encountered, the Owner shall be responsible for the cost of all testing and/or engineering required by the Contractor. Paragraph 8.D states that the Owner warrants that there [is] no . . . mock . . . in that portion of the owner's property which the contractor will construct the pool [and] decking . . .. The owner is responsible for the removal, repair or replacement of any underground conditions . . . encountered during construction unless he elects to terminate the contract and pay damages to the contractor as set forth in the clause on underground conditions. Paragraph 11.A provides: Contractor warrants to the original owner for the lifetime of the original purchaser, the swimming pool structure, the shell, will not leak due to cracking. . . . This Limited Structural Warranty does not cover damage to the pool shell caused by fluctuations of the water table, construction in the vicinity of the pool site, or natural phenomenon. . . . The contractor's responsibility under this Limited Structural Warranty shall be to repair the shell so that it holds water without cost to the original owner. . . . The method of repair shall be at the discretion of the contractor. THE CONTRACTOR MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN REGARDS TO THE POOL STRUCTURE, THE SHELL. Paragraph 11.B.2, which further describes the limited warranty, states: It is anticipated the concrete deck and deck coatings may crack due to settling of deck or weather. Cracks one-quarter inch or less with no substantial deviation in elevation are not covered. . . . The plot plan, which is part of the contract, shows the pool located on the east side of the house. The pool is oriented in a north-south direction. The southern end of the pool runs toward the back of the lot, which is on a steep slope. The southern end of the pool adjoins the widest section of decking, which Respondent constructed at the time of the construction of the pool. The plot plan also shows that excavated dirt was to be placed just south of the decking on the south end of the pool. Shortly after pulling a building permit from the Seminole County Building Department on March 27, 1986, Respondent began construction of the pool. The actual construction was performed by Mid-Florida Pool Company, which is a major pool construction company in Central Florida. Construction was completed on April 23, 1986, and the Bursons paid the amount required under the contract. Prior to commencement of construction of the pool, this area of the Bursons' lot had been filled with about 2 1/2 to 3 feet of dirt. In order to construct the pool, Respondent or his subcontractors added another 2 1/2 to 3 feet of fill, at least to the southern end of site of the pool and decking. It is at this point that the land begins to slope most steeply toward the marsh in the back. Neither Respondent nor any of his subcontractors conducted any soil tests prior to commencing construction or compressed or compacted the soil beneath the pool prior to installing the shell. This omission constitutes a departure from sound contracting practices under the facts cf this case. Respondent constructed several pilasters under the southern end of the deck, but these structural supports were designed to support the deck, not the pool. In general, the depth of the excavation had to exceed the depth of the pool by one foot in order to accommodate the shell. Thus, the extreme southern end of the shell required a hole only about four feet deep. An excavation of this depth did not exceed the combined depth of the old and new fill. There is no indication that Respondent or his subcontractors encountered muck during the excavation or construction of the pool. Likewise, there is no indication that Respondent or any of subcontractors was aware that mucky, unstable soils underlaid the location of the pool, especially the southern end. The pool was completed to the initial satisfaction of the Bursons. However, within 90 days of completion, the southern half of the shell developed five or six major cracks as a result of the settlement of the southern end of the pool. This portion of the pool settled because the underlying muck had been compressed by the weight of the shell and water. Gradually, the water loss from the settlement cracks, which were mostly below the waterline, became significant. At Respondent's suggestion, the Bursons agreed to wait through the winter before commencing repairs in order to allow the cracking to stabilize. In the spring of 1987, the Bursons drained the pool at Respondent's direction. Respondent then scored the cracks with a screwdriver and applied a filling compound in order to seal any leaks. As directed by Respondent, the Bursons then refilled the pool, but before more than two feet of water had been added, the filling compound fell out of the cracks. When the Bursons informed Respondent of the failure of the repair, he responded that he had performed under the contract and had no further obligation. The Bursons exercised their right to arbitrate, as provided in the contract. The arbitrators conducted a limited investigation. Expressly noting that they were not soil engineers and thus could not determine why the soil under the pool failed to support the shell, the arbitrators determined that the contractor was not responsible for any damage to the pool, "which was built to industry standards." The Bursons next contacted various pool contractors about repair options. Most of the contractors suggested a V-cut about 2 1/2 inches deep followed by the injection of hydraulic cement. When the Bursbns informed Respondent that this type of repair appeared necessary, he refused to undertake such work. By this time, one of the contractors documented that five of the cracks, which ranged from 1/16" to 1/4" wide, were pulling water out of the pool at a rate of 1-3" daily. This contractor charged the Bursons $125 for his services. After contacting the Seminole County Building Department, the Bursons learned that the pool had never passed a final inspection. When they had an inspector visit the site on September 13, 1991, he failed the job due to, among ether things, "massive deck cracks." At the insistence of Seminole County officials, the Bursons obtained expert opinions as to the cause of the cracks in preparation for the local hearing on the Bursons' charges against Respondent. In July, 1990, the American Testing Laboratories, Inc. conducted tests and opined that the south end of the pool had settled due to muck at a level of five feet below the bottom of the shell. Additional testing found muck at depths of 3-7 feet at two points just east of the south end of the pool. These tests cost the Bursons $498. When the Seminole County officials insisted upon further testing, the Bursons hired Jammal & Associates, Inc., which performed soil borings on August 23, 1990. The boring sites were just east of a point about midway along the southern half of the pool and a point just south of the southern end of the pool. The latter boring site revealed muck after penetrating about six feet of fill. At the request of Respondent, a Jammal employee returned to the site on November 13, 1990, to determine the potential cause of the cracking of the pool shell and deck. Jammal concluded that the cracking is the result of consolidation of the highly compressible peat layer found in the [southern] boring. Based upon the [cracking] observed, we suspect the southern 1/3 or so of the pool and deck area are underlain by the buried peat layer. The remainder of the pool and deck are most likely underlain by sandy soils. Because of the nature of the buried organic soils, the pool and deck will probably continue to settle at a diminishing rate for several years. Addition of new loads such as placement of additional fill around the pool and deck area, or a significant drop in the groundwater table could cause additional and accelerated settlement of the pool and deck. Jammal offered three repair options. The first was to patch the cracks. Jammal assumed that, although continued cracking could be expected, it would occur at a lesser rate because most of the settlement of the buried muck had already taken place. The second option was to remove the pool and then remove the underlying muck. The third option was to install inside the shell a fiberglass liner. The last option had been first suggested by Respondent. If not rigidly attached to the shell, the liner probably would not reflect further cracking of the shell. The Bursons paid Jammal the sum of $300 for its services. Ultimately, the Bursons decided to install a fiberglass liner and entered into a contract on November 19, 1990, with Fibre Tech for the work. The total cost of the project was $5415. This cost excludes the cost of replacing a pool vacuum for which Respondent does not appear responsible. The liner was later installed, and the Bursons paid the contract price. In the meantime, at a meeting on October 16, 1990, the Seminole County Swimming Pool Contractor's Board revoked Respondent's County certificate of competency until he repaired the pool or made restitution to the owners. This action was based upon a violation of Seminole County Code Section 40.151 and 40.34(2) and (9). Section 40.151 provides that "[a]11 completed pools shall be absolutely watertight." Section 40.34(a) allows the Board to revoke a certificate of competency if the contractor: (2) Continue[s] performance of building work in a negligent, incompetent or unworkmanlike manner. (9) Violate[s] any provision of this Chapter. The determination of the Seminole County Swimming Pool Board became final when Respondent failed to take a timely appeal of the order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $2500 and suspending Respondent's license until he makes restitution to the Bursons in the amount of $6338. ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McCray, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Craig M. Dickinson, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Merwin C. Carter, pro se 611 Ensenada Avenue Orlando, FL 32825
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, James H. Jasperson, held registered pool contractor's license numbers RP 0028372 and RP A028372 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The former license was issued in 1976 and qualified Respondent to operate under the name, Orlando Pools. The latter license qualified to operate under the name, Pools by Jim, until February 25, 1981, when he qualified Piper Pools, Inc. under that registration number. Respondent is in the business of constructing swimming pools. In June, 1979, he began a business association with a James Lovett of Orange City, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Lovett sold pool kits for Tallman Pools. Under their arrangement, Lovett would sell a prefabricated pool kit, and Jasperson would install it. However, Jasperson assumed all responsibility for sales, construction and warranties (Petitioner's Exhibit 2), and the construction and installation were done under Jasperson's registration. Work by Jasperson on jobs procured by Lovett was performed under the name, Pools by Jim. Between August and October, 1979, Lovett and Jasperson were advised on at least three separate occasions by Department Investigator Pirtle that it would be necessary for Jasperson to qualify Tallman Pools as his agent. Despite these warnings, Jasperson never qualified Tallman Pools. The exact date on which the business relationship was terminated was not disclosed, but Jasperson did advise Volusia County building officials in writing in early February, 1981, that no agent could qualify under his registration. On or about October 25, 1979, a contract was entered into by Pools by Jim and Thomason Builders of Geneva, Florida, to construct a swimming pool at a residence in Volusia County. The contract was signed on October 25, 1979, by Jim Lovett as sales representative Pools by Jim, and by Jerry Thomason on behalf of Thomason Builders (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Jasperson signed the contract on November 8, 1979, and noted that it was "accepted." The terms of the contract provided for completion of the pool by March 14, 1980. Construction on the pool began on or about November 1, 1979. Jerry Thomason, the owner of Thomason Builders, and the contractor of the house where the pool was to be built, was a registered residential contractor in Volusia County. Thomason thought he could pull a permit from the County to construct the pool; however, he was unsuccessful. Thereafter, on November 8, 1979, a Volusia County building official placed a stop work order on the pool site. Learning that a permit was still needed, Jasperson immediately signed an application for a permit on the same date as the stop work order was posted. The permit was officially issued on November 9, 1979. Between November 8, 1979, and February 18, 1980, two more stop orders and a notice of correction were posted on the project by Volusia County officials. County records brought to the hearing did not specify the nature of the charges that formed the basis for the orders and notice, but Jasperson stated the notice of correction related to improper grounding of the wires around the pool. He also testified that this correction was subsequently made. A dispute over the amount of money owed on the project by Thomason to Lovett arose in December, 1979 (Petitioner's Exhibit 9). Because of this dispute, work on the pool was stopped in February, 1980. The matter was subsequently resolved and the pool completed, with the exception of certain interior lighting. Jasperson acknowledged that Lovett was associated with him, and that the notice and stop work orders were issued on the job in question. However, he described Lovett as simply being a sales representative and not involved in the installation of the pools. He attributed any difficulties that may have arisen to a lack of control over Lovett, and poor judgment on his part in associating with Tallman Pools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent James H. Jasperson be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in Count II of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's registered pool contractor's License Number RP 0028372 be suspended for 90 days from the date of the final agency order entered herein for the aforesaid violation. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER, 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 26th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James H. Jasperson 1340 South Bumby Avenue Orlando, Florida 32896 Nancy Kelly Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
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.
