ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

04F-T1221-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2005-01-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 30, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through their attorney, Terry Esser. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, March R. Smith. 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 Complainants for the construction of an addition to, and the remodeling of, the complainants’ existing residence. 3. During the course of construction the Complainants became increasingly dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and requested that their architect review the project and obtained their own construction expert to examine the Respondent’s workmanship. 4. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent left the jobsite and refused to return following confrontations with the Complainants and the architect at the jobsite. 5. The Complainant, Terrance Dahlstrom, testified that the Respondent failed to follow plans and specifications, failed to perform its construction work in a workmanlike manner and refused to return to the construction site and complete the construction project despite repeated demands that it do so. . 6. When the Respondent declined to return to the construction site and complete the project the Complainants filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 7. 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 perform designated corrective work on the Complainant’s residence. 8. The written corrective work order provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ‘The Respondent should complete the remodel and addition in compliance with the written contract specifications and approved drawings. The concrete footings and slab should be installed in compliance with the approved drawing details in the proper locations. The plumbing should be installed by a licensed plumbing contractor.” 9. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the written corrective work order. 10. The Complainants’ architect, Therese Brown A.I.A., testified that the Respondent failed to comply with applicable plans and specifications and that, consequently, the Respondent’s construction work was unacceptable and requires proper correction or replacement. 11. The Complainants’ construction expert, Philip Rosenberg, testified that he examined the construction site and that the Respondent’s construction work failed to comply with applicable plans and specifications, failed to comply with applicable workmanship standards, and in certain instances presented a hazardous condition to the Complainants and the general public. 12. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent performed plumbing work at the construction project. There was no dispute that the Respondent is not licensed to perform plumbing work. 13. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent wrongfully abandoned the construction site leaving the Complainants’ residence in an unfinished condition with the interior of the Complainants’ residence exposed to the elements. 14. The Respondent’s actions, in failing to follow approved plans and specifications, in failing to perform its construction work in a workmanlike manner, in abandoning the construction project in an unfinished condition, and in performing unlicensed plumbing work, 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), (17), (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. In the event of certification of this Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the order will be 40 days from the date of that certification. Done this day, January 4, 2005

______________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ Day of ____________, 2005, to:

Registrar of Contractors Israel G. Torres ATTN: Jennifer Brown 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