ALJDEC

02F-T0721-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-08-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: Tuesday, August 20th, 2002; 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Co-complainant Mr. Frank W. Coletta appeared. Respondent, Mr. Robert Joseph Reif appeared. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston. _____________________________________________________________________ The administrative hearing of this matter was held in the Office of Administrative Hearings, Tucson, Arizona. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted to the record, and, based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent herein, Robert Joseph Reif, doing business as Pronto Restoration, is, and during all times material hereto was, a contractor, licensed by and doing business in the State of Arizona, holding Class B- License number 122549. (The notice of hearing issued from the Registrar of Contractors in this case lists respondent’s Class B-01 License number 136437 as the subject license, but the citation and complaint issued from the registrar in this case lists his Class B- License number 122549. Since the facts of this case clearly show that the work in question was performed on complainants’ residence, it is assumed that the citation and complaint was correct in this particular.) 2. Complainants have two residences, one in Fairbanks, Alaska, and the other in a Tucson, Arizona trailer park. In late December, 2000, while in Fairbanks, complainants were contacted by one of their Tucson neighbors to be informed that their Tucson residence had suffered severe water damage as a result of a broken water pipe. Complainants immediately set out for Tucson. Complainants contracted respondent to perform the needed restoration work to their residence shortly after their arrival in Tucson. 3. Respondent assured complainants at the time of their contract execution that all the work would be completed by him within three months. Based on this assurance complainants entered into a three-month rental agreement for a nearby trailer. 4. At the end of complainants’ three-month lease, respondent was nowhere close to having completed the contracted work. When confronted with his broken promise, respondent then assured complainants he would have the job finished in another month. Complainants consented to this extra time. 5. During this time frame complainant, Frank Coletta visited the job-site and there saw respondent’s two-man crew at work. He was dismayed by what he saw. One man was sloppily applying texture to the walls, while the other was trying to frame a wall without the aid of a square or level. The wall, not surprisingly, was out of plumb by 1¼”, and the header was unlevel. When complainant complained to respondent of this poor workmanship, Mr. Reif assured him that the work would be re-done correctly. 6. The complainant Frank Coletta had to leave for Texas on other business. While there he was telephoned by his wife, Co-complainant Anna Coletta, and informed by her that she had given Mr. Reif a check for the amount to complete the contracted work. Mr. Coletta inquired of her why she did this, and was told by her that Mr. Reif had said Mr. Coletta approved. Mr. Coletta had never approved such a thing. 7. By April 1st, 2001, complainants had returned to Alaska. They had arranged with a Tucson trailer park neighbor to keep them apprised of the status of respondent’s work on their trailer home. The neighbors would telephone complainants approximately every two weeks, and their reports were that very little work indeed was being performed by respondent or his crew. Whenever Mr. Coletta would contact Mr. Reif about the inordinate amount of time being consumed to complete the work, Mr. Reif would promise him that the work would be completed in another month, send workmen to the job-site for a few days, and then discontinue any further work on the job. 8. In September, 2001, Ms. Coletta telephoned Mr. Reif, informed him that her husband would be going to Tucson on October 10th, 2001, and that the job must be completed by that time. Mr. Reif informed her that it would be. 9. When Mr. Coletta arrived at his Tucson residence in October, 2001, he saw that most of the work had been performed by respondent, and performed defectively. 10. Cabinets had been refinished poorly and installed incorrectly; doors were hung incorrectly. The various items of defective construction will be specifically found hereinbelow. 11. Mr. Coletta informed respondent that his wife was arriving from Alaska on December 26th, 2001, and that all the work needed to be correctly completed by then. If the work was not completed by then, Mr. Coletta continued to inform respondent, he would place the matter in the hands of an attorney. Mr. Reif guaranteed all work would be satisfactorily completed by December 1st, 2001. 12. On December 26th, 2001, Ms. Coletta arrived at the job-site. The work was not completed. Mr. Coletta was contacted in January, 2002. He contacted respondent’s employee who informed him that he would send a man over tomorrow who would determine what additional materials would be necessary, and return the following day to start actual work. The man came over, worked for three hours and left the premises and Mr. Coletta with the promise that he was going for materials and would return the next day. No one from respondent returned the next day or the day after that. 13. By now, late January, 2002, Mr. Coletta’s patience was exhausted. He contacted a lawyer and ordered respondent not to set foot on his property again. 14. Complainants filed this complaint with the registrar on February 21st, 2002. The complaint was assigned to Registrar of Contractors Inspector Ed Monahan who conducted three separate job-site inspections, and issued three separate Corrective Work Orders. The first CWO was issued to respondent on March 7th, 2002; the second on March 11th, 2002; and the third on April 1st, 2002. Each contained several enumerated items of defective work the respondent was ordered to correct. Each allowed respondent 15 calendar days to make the corrections. Of course, by the time of the CWOs, respondent had been ordered off complainants’ property, and therefore had no access to correct anything. 15. By the time of the third CWO there were more than 30 separate defective conditions in respondent’s work. These were not minor, cosmetic flaws, but significant construction defects. All taken as a whole add up to a serious case of poor workmanship throughout the project. The project dragged on for 13 months after respondent’s original promise to complete the work in three. After these 13 very trying months for complainants, their home was a wreck. Practically every item of work touched by respondent or his workers was botched and left in a defective, and in some instances also a hazardous condition. 16. The third CWO makes clear the extent of the poor workmanship and damage inflicted on these complainants by respondent. The seriousness of respondent’s poor workmanship can be appreciated only by a full recitation of what he left in his wake. The drywall finish throughout was unsatisfactory. Complainants’ curtains were stained by respondent’s workers, and others were removed by them. Respondent had covered up an existing box for the cable TV hookup, and now a new one must be built. The base trim at the west cabinetry was unsatisfactory. An overhead light fixture cannot now be turned on because respondent covered over the switch. A built-in radio no longer works due to respondent’s workers’ damage. The oven door now cannot be opened because respondent’s workers installed a neighboring cabinet door too close, and it blocks the oven door. (Respondent’s workers, in an effort to correct this defect, removed the knob handle from the cabinet so the oven door would have more room, but even that pathetic effort was insufficient.) The finish work on the cupboards is incomplete. The cabinets at the sink area were not installed correctly, and they pitch from front to rear by ½”, allowing any stray water to run into the walls because there is a gap where the cabinet trim meets the walls. A light box with live wires was plastered over. The space framed for the refrigerator is too small for the refrigerator to fit. The cupboard was reframed too small so now the cupboard doors will not fit onto them. The floors in the hallway and bathroom are loose and spongy to the step. The bathroom door requires all of its hardware and trim to be reinstalled. The bedroom door is out of plumb. The original bathroom plumbing fixtures were brass, but respondent’s workers installed some chrome fixtures so now the bathroom has half chrome, half brass. The bathroom light does not function. The bathroom sink’s molding was incorrectly installed. The trim for the cabinet next to the shower is missing due to poorly installed shower tile. Trim at the bathroom door is scabbed together where it should be one piece. Cabinet trim at the bedroom is defectively installed. The light fixture and mirror in the bedroom are completely missing. The shower in the southeast corner of the bedroom is completely missing. A light box switch at the cupboard is covered over. A light box switch at the bedroom’s north wall is covered over. Respondent’s workers dented the exterior metal siding to the trailer while they were otherwise damaging complainants’ residence. The veneer on the cabinets is blistering. Only one screw per hinge was installed, where they should have had two. Some of the cabinet doors and drawer faces in the kitchen were installed crooked. 17. Complainants made a videocassette recording of the damage a part of the record, and being able to actually see the defects a fact finder can appreciate how unsightly they are. Some trim wood is practically falling off it is so loosely attached. The texture on the walls looks like it could have been applied by a trained monkey. Truly, elementary school children could have performed this restoration construction with a degree of workmanship at least equal to that of respondent. 18. All this terrible damage to complainants was inflicted over a period of thirteen months, at a monetary cost (not to mention the aggravation) of $12,500.00 paid on the contract, all the while respondent was repeatedly giving complainants’ empty promises about how he was going to make everything right. It is also found by complainant’s uncontradicted testimony that respondent deceived Ms. Coletta into parting with a check for several thousands of dollars in the false statement that Mr. Coletta had authorized the payment. 19. Notice is taken of respondent’s prior license record with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This administrative hearing was held under authority of and in accordance with A.R.S. §32-1156, and A.R.S. §41-1092. 2. Respondent herein is charged in the instant citation and complaint with possible violations of A.R.S. §32-1154A.7., 23., and 3. 3. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.23. prohibits a licensed contractor from failing to take appropriate corrective action to comply with the contractors’ laws of the State of Arizona, without valid justification, within a reasonable period of time, after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directives in this case were the CWOs. It is only because by the time the first CWO was issued complainant had ordered respondent off the property that respondent has a valid justification, and therefore cannot be concluded to have violated this section. Complainant, after 13 months of watching his house be continually damaged, understandably denied further access to it by respondent or his so-called workers. 4. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3. prohibits a licensed contractor from violating any rule adopted by the registrar. The rule cited in this case is A.A.C. R4- 9-108, Workmanship Standards. Respondent violated this rule to an extreme degree, and therefore violated the cited statute. 5. A.R.S. §32-1154.7. prohibits a licensed contractor from engaging in any wrongful or fraudulent act as a contractor which results in another person being substantially injured. Separate and apart from the violation of A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3., already concluded, respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.7. by fraudulently inducing Ms. Coletta to part with thousands of dollars of complainants’ money by telling her Mr. Coletta had consented to the act. 6. The seriousness of respondent’s violations in this case warrants revocation of the subject license. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that respondent’s Class B- License number 122549 be revoked on the effective date of this order (40 days after the date of service shown by the registrar’s certification on the order). Done this day, September 3rd, 2002.

________________________________ GRANT WINSTON Administrative Law Judge

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

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ____________________________

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