ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

03F-P0236-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2004-01-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 18, 2003. APPEARANCES: The Complainants, James A. and Carol Lemons, appeared personally. The Respondent appeared through its owner and qualifying party, Raymond Harris Morris. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ 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. The Respondent is the holder of License No. 090425, a Class B residential general contracting license, issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. On or about January 20, 2000, the parties entered into an agreement for the construction of a garage floor slab and a garage floor apron, among other things. 3. The supervisor of Respondent’s work at Complainants’ residence was the owner’s son, Bill Morris. While the work was being performed, Mr. Bill Morris was an employee of the Respondent. He subsequently obtained a contracting license. His father, the Respondent’s owner and qualifying party, now works for him. 4. On or about June 2001, Respondent performed remedial repairs to its work at the Complainants’ residence. 5. On or about June 2, 2003, Complainant James A. Lemons filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors alleging that Respondent violated provisions of the State’s contracting laws because Respondent failed to respond to a written warranty work request dated May 9, 2003, for remedial work on Complainants’ garage apron slab and the garage floor slab. 6. In response to the filed complaint, the Registrar’s assigned inspector performed a jobsite inspection to view the areas of deficient workmanship. 7. As a result of the jobsite inspection, a Corrective Work Order was issued to Respondent requiring remedial repairs. The inspector’s findings were:

a) Respondent was required to correct two concrete patches at the garage entrance which were hollow sounding. Those patches are adjacent to the newly installed garage apron slab and the control joint between the two apron slab and the garage slab. b) Respondent was required to correct the northwest edge of the garage apron found to be 4” short of the original pour. c) Respondent was not found to be required to repair a crack in the garage floor because that complaint was beyond the two year jurisdiction for enforcement by the Registrar. The garage floor had been in place since March 2000.

8. Respondent failed to timely comply with the Registrar’s Corrective Work Order. There is no credible justification for Respondent’s failure to comply with that written directive. 9. Respondent’s concrete patches at the Complainant’s garage entrance do not meet minimum workmanship standards. 10. Respondent failed to replace the original poured garage apron to the original dimensions. The apron is 4” short of the original pour. 11. Complainants did not present any evidence in support of their claim that the crack in the garage floor should be repaired by Respondent. On the contrary, the inspector testified that the crack is beyond the two year jurisdiction of the Registrar to require remedial repairs by a licensed contractor. 12. A review of the official records of the Registrar of Contractors reveals that Respondent’s Class B license has been suspended by operation of law for his failure to renew the license and lack of bond. Respondent’s license was also suspended on March 19, 2003 until he complied with the Registrar’s Order in Case No. P02-0128. 13. Based upon Respondent’s licensing record and actions in this case, it is extremely doubtful that Respondent would perform necessary remedial repairs to its deficient workmanship to bring the work within minimum workmanship standards if required as a condition imposed as a disciplinary action.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar Contractors has jurisdiction over the subject matter in this case and the Respondent. 2. The evidence of record is adequate to establish that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7), (23) and (3); namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108. 3. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(C), the suspension of the Respondent’s Class B license does not deprive the Registrar of jurisdiction to impose disciplinary action against his license for the above described violations. 4. In light of Respondent’s deficient workmanship in this matter and the current status of his contracting license, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the revocation of Respondent’s Class B license is the appropriate disciplinary action in this case.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent’s License No. 090425 be revoked on the effective date of the entered Order in this matter.

Done this date, January 2, 2004

_________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2004, to:

Israel G. Torres, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Jennifer Brown 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ________________________

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

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