ALJDEC

01F-R0200-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-10-31

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 12, 2001 APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Terrie Zenoff represented the Registrar of Contractors. Respondent Sun Craft Quality Builders LLC failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Daniel G. Martin _____________________________________________________________________

The question presented by this matter is whether Respondent Sun Craft Quality Builders LLC violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21) as charged by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors in a June 19, 2001 Citation and Complaint. Based on the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order: FINDINGS OF FACT This matter came on for hearing on October 12, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., pursuant to a Notice of Hearing issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) on August 1, 2001. The ROC appeared at the hearing, represented by counsel. Defendant Sun Craft Quality Builders LLC (“Sun Craft”) failed to appear, and further failed to contact the Office of Administrative Hearings to state any cause for its failure to appear. After providing Sun Craft an approximately 15 minute grace period within which to make its appearance, the Administrative Law Judge convened the hearing and proceeded in Sun Craft’s absence. Sun Craft is the holder of a Class B-02 license (No. 148328) issued by the ROC on August 30, 1999. [See Exhibit 1] Bruce Alexander Wiegand (“Mr. Wiegand”) is named on Sun Craft’s Class B-02 license as a member of Sun Craft and also as Sun Craft’s qualifying party. Claudia Ann Wiegand (“Ms. Wiegand”) is named on Sun Craft’s Class B-02 license as a member of Sun Craft. [Id.] Mr. Wiegand and Ms. Wiegand are also named as members on a Class B- license (No. 104721) issued to Sun Craft by the ROC on October 24, 1994. [See Exhibit 2] Mr. Wiegand is additionally named on Sun Craft’s Class B- license as qualifying party, resigned. [Id.] On July 11, 2000, the ROC revoked Sun Craft’s Class B- license pursuant to a Decision and Order in ROC Case No. 00-0520. On June 19, 2001, the ROC issued a Citation and Complaint charging that Sun Craft was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21). A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21) provides: The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions:

21. Having a person named on the license who is named on any other license in this state or in another state which is under suspension or revocation unless the prior revocation was based solely on a violation of this paragraph.

The evidence presented at hearing demonstrated that two persons named on Sun Craft’s Class B-02 license, namely, Mr. Wiegand and Ms. Wiegand, are also named on another license in this state that has been revoked (Sun Craft’s Class B- license). That revocation was not based on a violation by Sun Craft of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21). Because Sun Craft failed to appear at the hearing, Sun Craft did not offer any evidence to controvert or mitigate the evidence presented by the ROC. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In this proceeding, the ROC bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Sun Craft violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(21) as charged by the ROC in its June 19, 2001 complaint. See Arizona Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) R2-19-119. A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). Under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21), a contractor is subject to discipline for “[h]aving a person named on the license who is named on any other license in this or another state that is under suspension or revocation . . . .” The evidence demonstrated that two persons named on Sun Craft’s Class B-02 license, namely, Mr. Wiegand and Ms. Wiegand, are also named on another license in this state that has been revoked (Sun Craft’s Class B- license). Thus, Sun Craft stands in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21). Based on all of the evidence presented, and the absence of any mitigating factors, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that in consequence of Sun Craft’s violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21), Sun Craft’s Class B-02 license should be revoked. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Recommended Order: On the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, Sun Craft’s Class B-02 license shall be revoked.

Done this day, October 31, 2001.

______________________________________ Daniel G. Martin Administrative Law Judge

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

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors 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