ALJDEC

02F-1999-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-11-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 4, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Complainant Kayla Sharp Bradley appeared through Steven R. Beeghley, Esq., Sacks Tierney, P.A.; Respondent Home Tech Builders 3D Design, LLC, appeared through Anthony John Trigilio, its Qualifying Party and a member. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

The parties presented evidence on the issue of whether Home Tech Builders 3D Design, LLC violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17) when it performed certain additions to and substantial remodeling of Complainant Kayla Sharp Bradley’s residence. Based on the entire record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order to the Registrar of Contractors. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural Background 1. On October 23, 2001, the Registrar issued License No. 167131, Class B-, to Respondent Home Tech Builders 3 D Design, LLC, a limited liability company. Respondent’s qualifying part and member was Anthony John Trigilio. 2. Respondent submitted a proposal to Complainant and her husband to expand and substantially remodel the kitchen of their residence. Complainants accepted the proposal on November 20, 2001. 3. On May 17, 2002, Complainant made a complaint to the Registrar against Respondent’s license. Attached to Complainant’s form complaint was a 3½-page, single-spaced letter that set forth the parties’ alleged course of dealings and numerous workmanship violations. Complainant subsequently amended her complaint. 4. On June 24, 2002, the Registrar received Complainant’s request for hearing because the fifteen days allowed by Inspector Deering’s Corrective Work Order had long since expired and Respondent had not performed any of the corrections ordered. 5. On July 16, 2002, the Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint against Respondent’s license, charging violations of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(1), (2), (7), (17), (23) and (3). 6. On July 31, 2002, the Registrar received Respondent’s answer to the Citation and Complaint. Respondent denied any statutory violations and affirmatively alleged that all work was performed according to plans or according to the instructions of Complainant or Kris Kessler, the general contractor on the project and that the City of Scottsdale had originally approved all of Respondent’s work. 7. The Registrar referred the dispute to the Office of Administrative Hearings and set a hearing in due course. 8. Prior to the hearing, Complainant’s attorney notified the Administrative Law Judge that Complainant would only address the issue of Respondent’s alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17), knowingly contracting beyond the scope of its license, at the hearing and would seek restitution as a remedy for the alleged violation. 9. A hearing was held on November 4, 2002. Complainant testified on her own behalf, presented the testimony of Inspector Deering and electrical contractor Paul Parry, and offered into evidence 29 exhibits. Respondent presented the testimony of its qualifying party and offered into evidence nine exhibits. Additional Evidence 10. Complainant’s husband Treg Bradley and their friend Kris Kessler, who is not a licensed contractor, designed the kitchen remodeling. Part of the remodeling included an island with a sink in it. The remodeling, including the work described in the original proposal and four subsequent change orders, included rough-in electrical for the kitchen, enclosure of the carport to make it a garage, installation of bitumen roofing system on the garage, installation of approximately 2,400 square feet of tile, interior and exterior painting, installation of water lines to the island sink and to a pot filler at the stove, installation of can lights in the kitchen and various light fixtures in the garage, extension of HVAC runs, installation of sliding glass doors and a new window, construction of a new half-bath, and re-engineering the garage roof to support a view deck. 11. The total amount of the proposal plus change orders was $55,000.00. The parties orally agreed to modify their contract to omit installation of the tile, for a credit of $6,900.00. Respondent repainted the interior of the house, either because its original work was deficient or because Complainant changed her mind about the color, depending on whose testimony is credited. No written change order reflects the agreed cost of interior repainting. Respondent did not paint the exterior of the house. 12. Complainant paid Respondent a total of $46,100.00. Complaint made one payment through Mr. Kessler’s company, Vide, which paid Respondent. 13. Complainant testified that, after deductions, at most she and her husband owed Respondent $2,000.00. This amount was more than offset by the cost of repairing and completing the job. 14. Respondent’s qualifying party Mr. Trigilio testified that Complainant owed it $12,900.00, or at least $7,400.00 even after deductions for uncompleted work. Respondent stopped doing work on the contract because Complainant stopped paying it. 15. Mr. Kessler installed the base for the island sink, which was stainless steel and custom-made. 16. Complainant was living three doors down, is self-employed, and visited the jobsite frequently. Complainant testified that the only contractors she saw on the job were Mr. Trigilio and his crew. Although Respondent seemed to be “dragging its feet” in completing the job, Complainant had no problem with the Respondent’s work until it refused to complete work that she had paid for. 17. After Complainant made her complaint to the Registrar, she became aware of additional problems with its work. On May 20, 2002, the City of Scottsdale’s inspector “red-tagged” the island sink because no vent had been installed. 18. Inspector Deering testified that he performed a jobsite inspection on May 31, 2002, which Complainant attended. No one attended the jobsite inspection on Respondent’s behalf. 19. On June 2, 2002, Inspector Deering wrote the following letter to Respondent: Our records indicate that you have a current class B General Residential Contractor’s license. However, the complaint alleges you are performing or offering to perform work that would be covered under the scope of a class C-11 Electrical & C- Plumbing & C-39 Air Conditioning & Refrigeration & C-42 Roofing license regarding work at 8702 E. Devonshire, Scottsdale AZ 85251.

Arizona Revised Statutes, Section §32-1154, sets forth numerous grounds for suspension or revocation of a license. A.R.S.§32- 1154A.17 reads: “Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.” Under these circumstances, the agency can seek disciplinary action against your license. You should review our most recent Statutes and Rules book to familiarize yourself with the scope of your license(s).

[Emphasis in original.] Inspector Deering testified that, over the next month or so, he asked Mr. Trigilio at least five times to provide a list of the electrical, plumbing, roofing, and HVAC subcontractors that Respondent had used on the remodeling job. Although Mr. Trigilio promised several times to provide such list, he never did. 20. Respondent’s qualifying party Mr. Trigilio testified that he believed that Mr. Kessler was the general contractor for the job. Mr. Kessler hired Respondent and provided Respondent with subcontractors, whom Respondent believed were properly qualified under Arizona law. 21. Respondent’s qualifying party Mr. Trigilio testified it did use properly licensed plumbing, roofing, and electrical subcontractors, whose names Mr. Trigilio could not recall, to supervise its work. Mr. Kessler had hired the subcontractors. The electrical subcontractor was tall, had brown hair and a medium build, and was the same height as Mr. Trigilio. Mr. Trigilio testified the plumbing subcontractor had a crew. 22. Mr. Trigilio also testified that, because the HVAC work was “incidental” to the general remodeling, Respondent did not need an HVAC subcontractor to perform or to supervise Respondent’s performance of this work. 23. Mr. Trigilio testified that he had worked as a general contractor in Cleveland, Ohio for 18 years. He built more than 100 mostly spec homes. In Ohio, Mr. Trigilio was allowed to wire and plumb houses and do everything else involved in construction. He is very good at it. This was Respondent’s first big project in Arizona. 24. As a result of his inspection and meeting with Complainant, on June 4, 2002, Inspector Deering issued a Corrective Work Order to Respondent, in relevant part as follows: Complaint #1 Install stove faucet properly and repair paint and drywall. Contractor shall relocate stove faucet location to a usable location to be determined by the homeowner, using a properly licensed contractor. Repair drywall and paint after relocation.

Complaint #2 Install the range hood duct and repair as needed. Contractor shall install the ductwork for a vented range hood using properly licensed contractor, repair any damaged caused by installation by appropriate means. . . . .

Complaint #6 Install electrical and light covers as promised. Contractor shall finish electrical trim using a properly licensed contractor and pass the City of Scottsdale final inspection. . . . .

Complaint #10 Reimbursement for new island or hire another plumbing contractor to properly install island plumbing. Contractor shall correct island drain and vent plumbing per City of Scottsdale code using a properly licensed contractor, and pass necessary inspections.

Complaint #12 Repair deck roofing material. Contractor shall correct installation of the walking deck roofing and flashing per City of Scottsdale city code using an appropriately licensed contractor. . . . .

Complaint #17 Finish plumbing once kitchen is installed. Contractor shall finish all trim plumbing not excluded by contract at the proper time using a properly licensed contractor.

Complaint #20 Install toilets. Contractor shall supply and install toilets at the time of the plumbing trim by a properly licensed contractor. . . . .

Complaint #26 Flashing missing at the roof on the southwest corner, west side. Contractor shall correct flashing at the southwest corner west side of second story by appropriate means.

25. Inspector Deering testified that none of the items had been corrected at his second jobsite inspection. 26. Inspector Deering testified that a residential general contractor with a Class B license like Respondent’s could not perform protected specialty subcontracting, which included HVAC, electrical, plumbing, and roofing other than 3-tab shingle or shake. If a general contractor performs this specialty subcontracting work without an appropriate license, the Registrar has no way of knowing that the general contractor is qualified. 27. Complainant testified that, after Inspector Deering’s first inspection, she asked Respondent to furnish of list of the specialty subcontractors it had had used on the job. Mr. Trigilio said he did not need to use specialty subcontractors because he was working under someone else’s license. Although Complainant caused a subpoena to be issued to Respondent for this information, it was not provided. 28. Respondent had admitted into evidence the Building Permit Inspection History form the City of Scottsdale. This report showed that the following had passed the City’s inspection, with the date of the inspection shown in parentheses: plumbing/underground, water/underground, water service and sewer (1/30/2002); and rough plumbing, rough electrical, and rough mechanical (3/26/2002). 29. Respondent also had admitted into evidence a letter to Complainant from City of Scottsdale Building Inspection Supervisor Robert J. Petrillo, CBO, dated July 24, 2002, in relevant part as follows: As we discussed, remodels are inspected differently than new construction. Old work is exposed and altered as new wok is installed. It is neither exception nor unusual when older homes are remodeled to find old work that must be corrected. How these problems are handled is what’s important.

Based on our conversation and inspection of your project today, the inspectors and myself believe your contractor took liberties with the inspection process. It was apparent that electrical and plumbing work was added, and altered after we issued our approval for the requested inspections.

It’s unfortunate, but not uncommon, for a contractor to alter work after an inspection approval has been issued. We feel that this is a disservice to both the customer and the inspector. Our primary goal is to help the contractor produce a quality product through inspections, while protecting the owner[‘s] interest. If work is altered and covered up, it would be nearly impossible to discover this deception.

Mr. Petrillo attached two comments from Building Inspectors Todd Phillips and Roger Michener, who had inspected the project for the City. Mr. Phillips had red-tagged the plumbing gave the following account of that inspection: My first inspection at 8702 E Devonshire was on Monday – 05/20/2002. I met with the homeowner, [Complainant], early Monday along with the contractor, Tony [Trigilio], and the plumber. [Complainant] was upset about the work being done.

The plumber explained that the kitchen drain and vent loop (island vent) he was working on were unfinished. When he came back to finish, the floor was already poured. I wrote a correction notice requiring the underslab plumbing to be exposed so it could be properly inspected.

Mr. Michener inspected the project on July 24, 2002, the same date as Mr. Petrillo’s letter, and noted the following deficiencies: No island vent was installed, inspected or approved at the rough plumbing inspection. Electrical boxes were added and overfilled. Different size wiring used on the same circuit. Unlisted wire connectors used on splices. Splices buried above the ceiling. Kitchen, living room and garage on the same circuit.

30. Inspector Deering testified that it is possible for city inspectors to miss things on early inspections. If a job passes a city inspection, it is supposed to be free of defects. But City approval does not guarantee the absence of defects. 31. Mr. Trigilio argued that it was more likely that Complainant and her husband had made changes to the work Respondent had performed or had paid others to make changes to cause the work not to meet applicable code requirements, since the work had passed the City’s initial inspections. According to Mr. Trigilio, Complainant sabotaged Respondent’s work to avoid paying it monies owed. Plumbing 32. With respect to the plumbing, Inspector Deering testified that the blueprints showed an island sink, which must be vented. Because the sink was not located next to a wall, a loop vent needed to have been installed, which would run under the floor and up the nearest wall. In addition, the pot filler was stubbed out overhead. This was not usual and would make it very difficult to use it. 33. Complainant testified she hired Conner Plumbing to repair the plumbing and bring it up to code. She had admitted into evidence an affidavit from Chuck Conner, the owner of Conner Plumbing, that described the following code violations and concerns: 1. The kitchen sink under the window was roughed in with a 1-½ inch ABS horizontal and vertical drain line. It also had a 1- ½ cleanout serving it. Table 7-3 of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the City of Scottsdale clearly states that the minimum size shall be 2 inches. 2. The Island kitchen sink was ran [sic] in the same manner and in addition to the under sizing it also had no vent. (Please see attached—Special venting for island fixtures). Travis Lindsley provided this drawing from the City of Scottsdale Inspections Divisions. 3. Solder joints made under the structure were soft soldered and should have been brazed. This was discovered during the costly task of saw-cutting, jack hammering, and excavating under the concrete to bring items one and two up to code. The joints that were discovered were cut out and resoldered using the brazing method but it remains unknown how many other joints were joined improperly because they are hidden under the concrete. 4. The temperature, pressure, relief line on the water heater was trapped and the internal bore was reduced using copper flex lines. Section 608.5 of the Uniform Plumbing Code clearly states this violation.

There was one other observation that is not a code violation but merits mentioning. The copper stub out serving a future pot filler was stubbed out from the ceiling above future range top location. I have never seen a Pot Filler that could be mounted on a ceiling however if the [Respondent] could produce the drawing for one then I will stand corrected.

34. Complainant had admitted into evidence an invoice from Conner Plumbing dated August 28, 2002 for $2,173.32. The invoice is largely illegible but includes labor and material in the amount of $1,500.00 for moving the pot filler. The remaining amounts on the invoice, which is largely illegible, appear to be for materials and labor for plumbing in the powder room. This work may or may not have been included in Respondent’s contract and was not addressed at the hearing. 35. Complainant also had admitted into evidence a second invoice dated July 11, 2002 from Conner Plumbing for bringing the window and island sinks up to code. The amount of this invoice, which Complainant testified she paid, was $2,624.28. 36. The invoices do not bear a contractor’s license number. The Administrative Law Judge has not been able to ascertain that the Registrar ever issued a Class C-37 or other plumbing license to Conner Plumbing, Chuck or Charles Conner, or anyone else named Conner. 37. Complainant testified that the cost of reinstalling the water heater was about $300.00. However, no invoice for this work was offered into evidence. 38. Complainant testified that the island base that Mr. Kessler had installed was ruined when the floor was jackhammered to allow Conner Plumbing access to repair the vent and water lines. She had admitted into evidence an undated invoice from Vide LLC for $1,000.00 for “removal of original island.” 39. Mr. Trigilio testified that the original plans included a post to the island, which would allow the vent to be run up the post. In addition, Respondent installed the pot filler pipe where Mr. Kessler said it should go. Mr. Kessler did not testify at the hearing. No plans except the ones on which Mr. Parry identified the receptacle for the dishwasher and garbage disposal were offered into evidence. Roofing 40. Inspector Deering testified that installing the plumbing and fixtures for a new bathroom, removing and installing a new water heater, installing the water line to the pot filler, and installing the kitchen island required a C-37 plumbing license. 41. With respect to the roof installation, Inspector Deering testified that the roof was not properly flashed. He saw evidence of water damage that appeared to have been caused by leakage under the flashing. 42. Complainant testified that she hired Don Henderson of Central Arizona Roofing, Inc., License No. 170969, Class L-42, to install flashing on and repair the roof. Complainant had admitted into evidence an invoice dated June 25, 2002 from Central Arizona Roofing, Inc. for $1,080.00. Complainant testified she had paid the invoice to have the roof repaired. 43. Complainant also testified that the sliding glass doors and window that Respondent had installed had to be removed and replaced for the flashing to be installed. Complainant had admitted into evidence invoice #400-7704 from FreeLite Incorporated to Complainant’s new general contractor, Watson Development, License No. 167092, Class B-, dated September 9, 2002 for $1,515.00 for new sliding glass doors and a new window. Although the work has been done, Complainant testified she has not yet been billed by Watson Development, which is completing the job on a cost-plus basis. She estimated Watson Development’s cost for replacing the window and doors was about $1,000.00. 44. Mr. Trigilio testified that the roofing system Respondent used required flashing to be installed on the walk deck after the tile was laid. Because Complainant stopped paying Respondent, it did not install the flashing. Respondent should not be responsible for the water damage because it was not paid for the flashing. Mr. Trigilio testified that he has installed many bitumen roofs. Electrical 45. With respect to electrical, Inspector Deering testified that the rough electrical, finish electrical, and rerouting the electrical required a C-11 electrical license. 46. Inspector Deering testified only the rough-in electrical was completed at the time of his inspection. The wiring for the exterior light over the upstairs deck was not terminated properly in a box. 47. Complainant had admitted into evidence Invoice #40 from PDP Electric, Inc. dated August 2, 2002 for $3,777.62. This amount includes 61 hours labor at $45.00/hour for “rewire remodel per code tear-off dry wall replace existing switches and receps” and 8 hours labor for “add can lights kit.” 48. Paul Parry of PDP Electric, Inc., License No. 170381, Class C-11, testified on Complainant’s behalf. Even though the electrical had passed inspection, it had many problems, including the kitchen and garage being on the same circuit. The range hood was not wired. There were numerous J-boxes with exposed wiring. There were not the proper number of outlets in the kitchen that applicable code required. The kitchen also lacked an outlet for the dishwasher and garbage disposal, although such a receptacle was shown on the plan that Mr. Trigilio had admitted into evidence. Although Mr. Parry looked for stamped, approved plans at the jobsite, he was unable to find any. 49. Many times, Mr. Parry has seen defective electrical work pass the City’s inspection. It all depends on the inspector’s experience. Mr. Parry testified that the rough-in electrical had been dry- walled over after it passed the City’s inspection. The $3,777.62 was only for repairing the wiring in the remodel and repairing the can lights that Respondent had installed. Mr. Parry did other work, which was charged on separate invoices. 50. Mr. Trigilio testified that Respondent did not contract to install a dishwasher and garbage disposal or to install receptacles for these appliances. Frequently, homeowners do not install these items in kitchen remodels, instead choosing to install them later. 51. Complainant testified that this was ridiculous. She would not remodel her kitchen and exclude a dishwasher and garbage disposal. Mr. Trigilio had accepted delivery of appliances, including a dishwasher. HVAC 52. Inspector Deering testified that installing new HVAC runs and a range hood required a C-39 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration license. 53. Inspector Deering saw a vent for the range hood had been removed but another one had not yet been installed. A range must be vented. 54. Complainant testified that Respondent painted over registers, which made it necessary to replace them. Watson Development hired Efficiency Mechanical, Inc., License No. 088055, Class C-39R, to replace the registers and install the range hood. Complainant offered into evidence Efficiency Mechanical, Inc.’s bid dated August 14, 2002 for $2,412.00. The bid was not itemized and included certain work that did not appear on Respondent’s contract, including servicing the two air conditioning units, installing a new thermostat, enlarging four return air grills for better air flow, and repairing one unit that was not working. Aggravation 55. The Citation and Complaint notified Respondent that, if it were found to be in violation of any statute, the Registrar might consider its prior disciplinary record of final agency orders in mitigation or aggravation. Notice is therefore taken of the Registrar’s official records, which show that a final order was entered in Case No. M02-1359 on a complaint made by Carolle J. Meeks, in which the Registrar found that Respondent had violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (17) by contracting beyond the scope of its license. Respondent’s history is considered as a factor in aggravation of the penalty to be imposed in this case. An additional factor in aggravation is Respondent’s persistent refusal to acknowledge applicable statute or to cooperate with the Registrar’s investigation of this matter. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Complainant bears the burden of proof and must establish a statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence.[1] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[2] A preponderance of the evidence is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”[3] 2. Respondent’s Class B license allowed it to perform “[c]onstruction of all or any part of a residential structure or appurtenance, except for electrical, plumbing, air conditioning systems, . . . and roofing (except shingles and shakes) which must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor.”[4] The regulation contains no exception for specialty contracting work that is “incidental” to other construction. 3. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license “[k]nowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.” “’Knowingly’ imports only a knowledge that the facts exist which bring the act or omission within the provisions of the statute using such word. It does not require any knowledge of the unlawfulness of the act or omission.”[5] “’Knowingly’ means, with respect conduct or circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person is aware or believes that his or her conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists. It does not require any knowledge of the unlawfulness of the act or omission.”[6] It has long been the law in Arizona and elsewhere, however, that “’[n]otice of facts and circumstances which would put a man of ordinary prudence and intelligence on inquiry is . . . equivalent to knowledge of all the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.’”[7] In this case, Respondent should have known that applicable Arizona regulation did not allow it to perform electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and roofing subcontracting. Complainant has established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17) when it performed electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and roofing work that was beyond the scope of its Class B license. 4. The legislature has authorized the Registrar to condition a contractor’s continued licensure upon payment of restitution under certain circumstances.[8] To be entitled to restitution, Complainant must establish that Respondent’s unworkmanlike performance of the work that was beyond the scope of its license caused her to suffer a loss and must establish the amount of the loss.[9] 5. Complainant has established that she incurred losses by having to pay other appropriately licensed specialty contractors to correct Respondent’s unworkmanlike performance in the following amounts: $1,080.00 to Central Arizona Roofing to install flashing and repair the roof; $1,515.00 to FreeLite Incorporated for the new sliding doors and window; and $3,777.62 to PDP Electric Inc. to repair the wiring. Because it does not appear that Chuck Conner or Conner Plumbing possessed a C-37 contractor’s license, on this record Complainant is not entitled to recover the $4,124.28 to Conner Plumbing to correct the sinks and the pot filler. Complainant also is not entitled to recover in this forum any monies paid to unlicensed contractor Kris Kessler or Vide, LLC. 6. Although it appears that Respondent’s unworkmanlike performance of specialty contracting that was beyond the scope of its license caused Complainant to incur additional losses, consisting at least of the cost to repair the drywall following PDP’s correction of the wiring and the cost to replace the registers and repair the HVAC system, the evidence does not allow the Administrative Law Judge to liquidate these losses. Complainant also may have incurred additional damages for Respondent’s unworkmanlike performance or failure to perform work that was within should be allowed to present evidence of these damages in a civil claim to a court having appropriate jurisdiction or, if the Registrar eventually suspends or revokes Respondent’s license, in a claim to the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund under A.R.S. § 32-1131 et seq. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar revoke Respondent Home Tech Builders 3 D Design, L.L.C.’s License No. 167131, Class B on the effective date of the order in this matter, forty days after service. It is further recommended that if, on or before the effective date of the Registrar’s order, Respondent furnishes to the Registrar proof in writing that it has paid Complainant $6,372.62, no suspension take place and the Registrar may close Case No. 02-1999. Done this day, November 25, 2002.

______________________________________ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By ___________________________ ----------------------- [1] See A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 438, 930 P.2d 508, 515 (App. 1996).

[2] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

[3] Black’s Law Dictionary at page 1182 (6th ed. 1990).

[4] A.A.C. R4-9-103.

[5] A.R.S. § 1-215.

[6] A.R.S. § 13-105(6)(b).

[7] Maricopa Utilities Co. v. Cline, 60 Ariz. 209, 214, 134 P.2d 156 (1943) (quoting Schneider v. Henley, 61 Cal. App. 758, 215 P. 1036, 1038).

[8] See A.R.S. § 32-1156.01; see also Sunpower of Arizona v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors, 166 Ariz. 437, 440-41, 803 P.2d 430, 433-34 (App. 1990).

[9] See State of Arizona v. Wilkinson, 367 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3, ___, 39 P.3d 1131, 1133 (2002).

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

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