ALJDEC

01F-R0191-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-09-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 20, 2001 APPEARANCES: Victoria Martin, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of the State Felix Reveles, Qualifying Party, on behalf of the Respondent and in his own behalf ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Allen Reed _____________________________________________________________________ Findings of Fact 1. The Respondent corporation, Unique Pool Plumbing, Inc. (Unique), was issued a Class C-37R (pool plumbing) license no. 090032, by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar), in June of 1991. 2. Felix Reveles (Reveles), was the Qualifying Party, 33% shareholder and president of the corporation. Jose Avila (Avila) was a 33% shareholder and secretary / treasurer. 3. On January 23, 1997, a Class B-05 license no. 120652 was issued by the Registrar to Vista Linda Custom Pools and Spas, Inc. (Vista Linda). Reveles was the Qualifying party, 50% shareholder and corporate president. Avila is listed as a 50% shareholder and vice-president / treasurer. 4. On April 27, 2000, the Vista Linda license was suspended until it complied with the Order in Case No. G00-0180. On September 11, 2000, the Vista Linda license was revoked in Case No. G00-0692. 5. On November 6, 2000, the Unique license was suspended until it complied with the Order in Case No. 00-2893. According to Reveles, the case concerned a failure to pay for material or services (A.R.S.§32- 1154(A)(11)), but it should have been against the Vista Linda license. The testimony is noted but there was no corroborating evidence to establish this as fact. In addition, based on the facts of the case in their entirety, the issue is of little relevance in the instant matter. 6. According to Reveles, Unique ceased operating as business approximately a year and a half ago. No annual corporate report has been filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission and Reveles and Avila are no longer actively engaged in the corporate affairs. Based on this evidence, the corporation is no longer viable and Unique is no longer a legal entity. Conclusions of Law A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(21) provides in pertinent part that it is a violation of the contracting laws to have a person named on a license which person was also named on a revoked license. The Citation and Complaint allege the Respondent has a person (Reveles) listed on its license, which person was also listed on the revoked Vista Linda license. 1. Reveles did not contest the facts in this case with respect to the revocation of the Vista Linda license. In view of this, the violation of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(21), is proven. 2. The only issue is the nature of the penalty to be imposed. The State argued that the history of both licenses (which also included lack of bond suspensions), should be considered in aggravation. The underlying facts of the other referenced suspensions were not a matter of record and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) cannot conclude that violations were egregious or that there are especially aggravating circumstances. 3. However, the proven violation when taken in conjunction with all the relevant facts of this case, including the fact that there is no legal entity which is entitled to hold the license at issue, requires the following recommendation. Recommended Order In view of the foregoing it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, the Class C-37R license of the Respondent shall be revoked.

Done this day, September 21, 2001

______________________________________ Allen Reed 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