ALJDEC

01F-T0220-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-02-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 13, 2001, at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through its authorized representative, Les Wolf. The Respondent appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas _____________________________________________________________________

Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent is the holder of a Class B License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent entered into an agreement with the Homeowners involved herein to perform an extensive remodeling of their residence. The parties’ written agreement establishes that the original cost of the project was to be the sum of $222,000.00. 3. During the course of construction, the Respondent’s communication with the Homeowners deteriorated rapidly and following a particularly combative conversation the Homeowners retained the Complainant, The Wolf Company/Les Wolf, to act as a “construction manager” and to oversee the Respondent’s construction work. 4. Credible evidence established that the Respondent reacted adversely to the retention of a construction manager to oversee his construction work and that during the course of further construction the personal relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent deteriorated rapidly. 5. Credible evidence established that the Respondent became increasingly resentful of taking direction from either the Homeowners or the Complainant and that the Respondent abandoned the extensive remodeling project in an unfinished state. 6. The Complainant and the Homeowners were dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to complete the construction project work despite a written request that he do so. The Homeowners then directed the Complainant to file a complaint against the Respondent’s Class B License. 7. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 8. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to return to the job-site and perform designated corrective work on the Homeowners’ residence and to properly complete the construction project. 9. The Respondent did not return to the job-site and performed no corrective action in response to the written corrective work order. 10. The Homeowners then asked the Complainant to take over the construction project and to complete enough of the remodeling project so that the Homeowners could move back into their residence. 11. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the Homeowners have spent the sum of $40,309.59 for the performance of corrective action to the Respondent’s construction work, the total sum of $11,935.85 for “past due” invoices from subcontractors and material suppliers utilized by the Respondent and have, so far, paid the sum of $27,180.34 for construction work to complete the project. 12. Credible evidence established that several of the items set forth in the written corrective work order have still not been completed. 13. The Respondent asserts that he did not receive the final draw due under the parties’ written agreement and that he is entitled to an offset in the sum of $39,200.00. The Homeowners sharply dispute this but even if the full amount is given as an offset the Homeowners have experienced a minimum cost overrun of $40,125.78 for a remodeling construction project which is still unfinished. 14. The Respondent’s actions, in abandoning a construction project and leaving a residence in an unfinished condition and in failing to comply with a written corrective work order to return to the residence and properly complete the construction project, are found to constitute a wrongful act. 15. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (1), (7) (Wrongful Act), (23) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class B License be revoked. Done this day, March 6, 2001.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of March, 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 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488