ALJDEC

01F-A012012(3)-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 2001-12-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 6, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Complainants did not appear; Respondents Arizona Express Services and Hancock Hi-Country Homes, LLC did not appear; Respondent Cavco Industries LLC dba Cavco Industries Litchfield Division appeared through Scott Chambers, its authorized employee. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

Appellants appealed the failure of the Department of Building and Fire Safety, Office of Manufactured Housing (“Department”) to verify certain complaints against the three named Respondents. Based upon Appellants’ failure to appear at the duly noticed hearing, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order to the Director of the Department. FINDINGS OF FACT Appellants filed complaints with the Department against the licenses of the three named Respondents about claimed deficiencies or defects in their manufactured home. The Department’s inspector later inspected the home and verified some but not all of Appellants’ complaints against one of the three Respondents. Appellants appealed the Department’s failure to verify all of the complaints. The mailing address provided on the notice of appeal was P.O. Box 742, Taylor, AZ 85939. On November 5, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Hearing, informing the parties that a hearing would be held on December 6, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the Office of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the notice was sent via certified mail to Appellants at the address shown on their notice of appeal. Although the beginning of the duly noticed hearing was delayed fifteen minutes to allow Appellants additional travel time, they neither appeared, contacted the Office of Administrative Hearings to request a continuance or that the time for the hearing be further delayed, nor presented any evidence at the hearing to support their appeal. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Appellants bear the burden of proof and must establish that the items appealed should have been verified against Respondents by a preponderance of the evidence.[1] Appellants, by failing to appear at the duly noticed hearing, failed to sustain their burden to establish that the Department should have verified their complaints against Respondents. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Director of the Department dismiss these complainants against Respondents Arizona Express Services, License No. 5776, Class I-10G; Hancock Hi-Country Homes, LLC, License No. 7431, Class D-12; and Cavco Industries LLC dba Cavco Industries Litchfield Division, License No. 7099, Class M-9E. Done this day, December 6, 2001.

______________________________________ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of December, 2001, to:

Department of Building and Fire Safety N. Eric Borg, Director ATTN: Shawna Blank East Virginia, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004

By ___________________________

----------------------- [1] See A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 438, 930 P.2d 508, 515 (App. 1996).

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826