ALJDEC

01F-P0208-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-08-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 15, 2001. APPEARANCES: David Heath Rock and Nichol Rock, Complainants; and Tom Sandoval, Registrar of Contractors Inspector. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang. ____________________________________________________________________ David and Nichol Rock hired Crowther Brothers Construction, Inc. to build an addition to their home, but Crowther Brothers abandoned the job leaving them with extensive repairs to complete. Crowther Brothers departed from the plans, did not get a permit, did electrical work not encompassed by its license, and failed to complete the Corrective Work Order. The Rocks have established numerous violations of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A), and the record shows that Crowther Brothers is not able to meet the demands of licensure. Therefore, it is recommended that License Number 153671, held by Crowther Brothers Construction, Inc., be revoked. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. David and Nichol Rock contracted with Crowther Brothers Construction, Inc. (“Crowther Brothers”) to build an addition to their home. The contract was signed on January 24, 2001, and the Rocks paid Nathan Crowther in full, over $29,000, and even voluntarily over-paid in order to help him complete the job. Unfortunately, after beginning the job, he ran into problems, stopped working and abandoned the project. 2. The Rocks filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors on March 26, 2001. At the job site inspection on April 6, 2001, Registrar of Contractors Inspector Tom Sandoval found numerous items requiring completion, correction or clean-up. The project did not have a permit, and some electrical work had been done by Crowther Brothers that is not encompassed by its license. In his Corrective Work Order dated April 11, 2001, Mr. Sandoval ordered that the work, as listed, be corrected within 15 days. 3. After receiving the Corrective Work Order, Nathan Crowther went to the Rocks’ home and attempted some corrections but again gave up and stopped coming. On May 3, 2001, David Rock submitted a request for hearing. 4. Mr. Sandoval conducted a pre-hearing job site inspection on August 14, 2001. He found that few of the corrective work items had been completed. The homeowners have done many of the corrections themselves but many more remain. They continued to ask Nathan Crowther to come finish the project. He came sporadically but did not return after May 21, 2001. 5. The hearing was conducted on August 15, 2001. No one appeared on behalf of Crowther Brothers. The Rocks testified extensively as to the work still in need of correcting and the harm that has come from the failure of the project. For example, Crowther Brothers departed from the plans in the construction of the roof. This has caused leaks that have damaged the interior of the home. The electrical work in the whirlpool bath is unsafe. There is insufficient crawl-space and ventilation beneath the floor that the county inspector will not pass as is. There are numerous unsightly flaws, including gaps in the woodwork. Over a truckload of debris was left to be removed at the Rocks’ expense. The Rocks have spent a great deal of additional money on repairs and still have an unfinished addition. One contractor has told them that he cannot fix the house for less than $20,000. 6. On June 4, 2001, Nathan Crowther submitted an Answer to the Citation and Complaint. In it he claimed that the Rocks did not want a permit for this construction. He stated, regarding the issue of his failure to meet minimum workmanship standards, “I was in the process of correcting them”. Regarding the injury to the homeowners, he stated, “The homeowner was injured by their own actions”, but he did not explain how this was so. He admitted wiring the addition without a license. He also stated that the Rocks owed him money on the project pursuant to a verbal agreement and that he could not go on working for free. 7. Mrs. Rock testified as to the amount of money paid to Crowther Brothers, stating that she cannot figure out how it would be that they would owe more money. By her calculation, the Rocks paid more than the parties agreed on. Obviously, they paid this long before the project was completed because it still is not completed. 7. According to the records of the Registrar of Contractors, the Class B-03 license in this matter was issued on April 20, 2000, has 2 open complaints filed against it and was suspended on August 20, 2001 for lack of bond. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Contractors pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1104(A)(4), 32-1154(B) and 32-1156. 2. The Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors in this matter alleged potential violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), (3), (7), (17) and (23) and A.A.C. R4-9-108. 3. The Arizona Revised Statutes at § 32-1154(A)(2) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for departure from or disregard of plans or specifications or building codes without consent of the owner or his or her representative. 4. The Arizona Revised Statutes at § 32-1154(A)(3) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar”. The Arizona Administrative Code requires contractors to meet minimum workmanship standards. A.A.C. R4-9- 108. 5. The Arizona Revised Statutes at § 32-1154(A)(7) provides for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for the “doing of a wrongful or fraudulent act by the licensee as a contractor resulting in another person being substantially injured”. 6. The Arizona Revised Statutes at § 32-1154(A)(17) provides for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the licensee. 7. The Arizona Revised Statutes at § 32-1154(A)(23) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for failure to take appropriate corrective action on a Corrective Work Order without valid justification and within a reasonable period of time. 8. The Registrar of Contractors may consider the prior record of a contractor in any disciplinary proceeding provided the records are introduced into evidence. A.A.C. R4-9-117. On standing motion by the Registrar of Contractors, the computer records of the Registrar of Contractors may properly be considered to be evidence in the event the Administrative Law Judge finds a violation of any of the statutory provisions cited in the Citation and Complaint. Respondent’s license is not outstanding for having complaints and did not weigh in this recommendation. 9. In this case, the evidence of record has established that the Respondent violated all of the above statutes. It caused substantial injury to the Complainants when it abandoned the job without correcting the problems that its work caused. The few items that it was able to correct after receiving the Corrective Work Order indicates that the Respondent is unable to meet the requirements of retaining its license without causing further harm to the public. Its actions have shown that it is unwilling to complete the work and will not return to the home. Therefore, the Respondent’s license should be revoked.

RECOMMENDED DECISION Based upon the foregoing considerations, it is recommended that Respondent’s Class B-03 license shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. Done this day, August 29, 2001. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By ___________________________

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

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