ALJDEC

01F-R012023-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 2002-02-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 24, 2002 APPEARANCES: Jose Ramon Verduzco appeared at the hearing on his own behalf. Radiant Manufactured Homes did not appear at the hearing. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Lewis D. Kowal _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On June 1, 2001, Jose Ramon Verduzco (Complainant) and his wife Magdalene Verduzco (Mrs. Verduzco) noticed a Radiant Manufactured Homes (Respondent) sign regarding the sale of mobile homes. Subsequently, Tony Valenti (Mr. Valenti), a salesman for Respondent, came to Complainant’s home and took the Verduzcos to see a previously owned mobile home Respondent was selling on behalf of its owner (the Home). 2. The Verduzcos expressed an interest in purchasing the Home and Mr. Valenti made an appointment for the Verduzcos to come to Respondent’s office on June 10, 2001. The Verduzcos kept the appointment on June 10, 2001, and provided Mr. Valenti with a $100.00 check to hold the Home for their purchase. 3. Approximately three days after the above-mentioned appointment, the Verduzcos were notified by Mr. Valenti that instead of the $100.00 check, Respondent required a $100.00 cash deposit. 4. On June 16, 2001, Respondent returned the $100.00 check to the Verduzcos and the Verduzcos submitted to Respondent $100.00 in cash as a deposit to set aside the Home. 5. Several days after June 16, 2001, Mr. Valenti contacted the Verduzcos and informed them that the Verduzcos needed to submit an additional deposit of $900.00 to secure the Home for their purchase. At that time, Mrs. Verduzco informed Mr. Valenti that they could only afford to submit $500.00 and would not provide Respondent with the $900.00 until a contract was signed assuring them of the purchase of the Home. 6. On June 19, 2001, the Verduzcos provided Mr. Valenti with a $500.00 check and received a receipt acknowledging that the Home would be held for their purchase. Later that night, Mr. Valenti called Mrs. Verduzco and advised her to cancel the $500.00 check because he was going to stop working for Respondent. Mr. Valenti also told Mrs. Verduzco that the Verduzcos would lose their money that was placed as a deposit to secure their purchase of the Home. The next day, in reliance on Mr. Valenti’s statements, the Verduzcos stopped payment on the $500.00 check. 7. Several days after the stop payment of the $500.00 check, Mr. Valenti called Mrs. Verduzco and told her that if the Verduzcos liked the Home and wanted to go ahead with its purchase, they should proceed with that transaction but be careful what they sign. 8. On July 9, 2001, two female representatives of the Respondent visited the Verduzcos at their home and informed them that the women were now in charge of the sale of the Home. The women also informed the Verduzcos that Mr. Valenti no longer worked for Respondent and in order for the Verduzcos to purchase the Home, Respondent required the additional $900.00 deposit. Mrs. Verduzco informed the women that the Verduzcos could only afford to submit $500.00 and could give the balance of the deposit when the Home was delivered to them. It was agreed that the next day the Verduzcos would go to Respondent’s office and submit the $500.00 deposit. 9. On July 10, 2001, the Verduzcos delivered the $500.00 check to Respondent and were informed that the Home would be delivered to them in two weeks, at which time, the Verduzcos would pay the $400.00 deposit balance. 10. After July 24, 2001, the Verduzcos went to the Home and spoke with its owner. At that time, the Verduzcos were informed that the contract the owner had with Respondent for the sale of the Home had expired and the Home was in the process of being sold to someone else. 11. Upon learning that the Home was not being sold to them, the Verduzcos went to Respondent’s office, where Mr. Valenti and the two female representatives who had visited the Verduzcos’ home on July 9, 2001, were present. The Verduzcos sought an explanation as to what happened to the sale of the Home and requested the return of their deposit money. The Verduzcos were told to return to the Office ten days later to receive a refund of their deposit. 12. When the Verduzcos returned to Respondent’s office ten days later, they found it closed. A neighbor informed the Verduzcos that Respondent had moved and was no longer doing business at that location. 13. Mrs. Verduzco began searching for Respondent and, from a telephone number, was able to obtain an address for Respondent (the “new address”). 14. The Verduzcos went to the “new address” and observed the same individuals who worked at Respondent’s previous office. The Verduzcos requested the return of the above-mentioned $600.00 deposit. The people present at the “new address” informed the Verduzcos that the business conducted at the “ new address“ was different than Respondent ‘s business and did not use Respondent’s license number. The Verduzcos were also informed that the business located at the “new address” did not owe the Verduzcos their $600.00 deposit. 15. The Verduzcos learned of the Arizona Department of Building and Fire Safety (Department) and contacted that agency concerning the above- described situation. The Verduzcos submitted a claim with the Department seeking payment of $600.00 from the Consumer Recovery Fund, resulting in the instant hearing. 16. To date, Respondent has not refunded Complainant any portion of the above-mentioned $600.00 deposit that Respondent owes to Complainant. 17. Mrs. Verduzco credibly testified as to the above-mentioned facts during the hearing. 18. Respondent did not appear at the hearing and failed to present any evidence to refute or rebut the evidence presented by Complainant. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The weight of the evidence of record established that Complainant has a valid claim pursuant to A.R.S. §41-2190,(D) and that the sum of $600.00, which Respondent owes Complainant, is a proper and reasonable sum that the Consumer Recovery Fund should pay to Complainant. 2. Grounds exist for Respondent’s license to be suspended pursuant to A.R.S. §41-2190(D). ORDER IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of this Order, the Board of Manufactured Housing shall pay $600.00 to Complainant from the Consumer Recovery Fund. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on the effective date of this Order, Respondent’s license shall be suspended and shall remain on suspension until Respondent has repaid the Consumer Recovery Fund the sum of $600.00 plus interest at the rate of ten per cent per year. Done this day, February 12, 2002.

______________________________________ Lewis D. Kowal Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2002 to:

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

By ___________________________

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

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