ALJDEC

00F-P0233-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-12-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 5, 2000; at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through their attorney, Edward Amack. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Randall Curtis. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent is the holder of a Class KB-02 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Complainants entered into an agreement with the Respondent for the erection of a steel building and foundation on the Complainant’s property for the total sum of $22,500.00. 3. There was no dispute that the Respondent performed a portion of the agreed upon work and that it erected a steel building on the Complainant’s property and that the Respondent was paid the approximate sum of $8,000.00 for its work. 4. During the course of construction, the parties developed a very poor working relationship and the Complainants informed the Respondent that they had obtained a restraining order against the Respondent. 5. Credible evidence established that the Complainants were very dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and requested that the Respondent correct its work to their satisfaction. 6. The Respondent performed some minor corrective action on the steel building. However, the Complainants were dissatisfied with the Respondent’s corrective efforts. 7. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the Respondent then suggested that the Complainants contact the designer of the steel building and indicated that it would “take care of” any repairs that the designer thought were necessary. 8. The Complainants then contacted the designer of the steel building. 9. The designer, which is also a licensed contractor, inspected the Respondent’s work, found it to be very poor, and offered to correct the steel building for the sum of $14,515.00. 10. The Complainants then contacted the Respondent and asked it to pay the designer for the suggested repairs to the steel building in the sum of $14,515.00. 11. The Respondent felt that the sum of $14,515.00 was excessive and declined to pay the sum of $14,515.00 for repairs to the steel building. 12. The Respondent then offered to perform any necessary corrective work on the steel building. 13. The Complainants then filed a formal complaint against the Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors. 14. The assigned agency inspector then scheduled an on-site inspection which the Complainants canceled on the basis that an alternative licensed contractor, the designer of the steel building, had already corrected the Respondent’s deficient workmanship and that there was no longer any deficient work by the Respondent to inspect. 15. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent’s construction work failed to comply with minimum applicable industry standards and that extensive corrective action was required to bring the construction of the steel building to within applicable industry standards. 16. The Respondent’s actions, in failing to erect the steel building in a workmanlike manner and in failing to perform needed corrective action in a timely manner, are found to constitute a wrongful act. 17. However, there was no credible evidence presented to establish that the Complainants’ actions, in causing the corrective action to be completed by an alternative contractor before the assigned agency inspector could even inspect the complained of work, were reasonably justified. 18. The credible evidence of record establishes that the Complainants obtained only one bid for repairs to the steel building and the credible evidence is insufficient to make a reasonable determination as to whether the bid for repairs was reasonable or not. 19. The Respondent’s dispute regarding the cost of the repairs is found to be a good faith money dispute which should be resolved in a civil court of competent jurisdiction. 20. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior license record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (7) (Wrongful Act) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108. 2. The Registrar of Contractors does not have jurisdiction to access money damages and such disputes should be resolved in a civil court of competent jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended, commencing on the effective date of this Order, that the Respondent’s Class KB-02 License shall be actively suspended for a period of thirty (30) days. Done this day, December 27, 2000.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of December, 2000, to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By _______________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488