ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

06F-2515-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-03-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 13, 2007. APPEARANCES: Kevin Johnson appeared personally. Osos Madera, Inc. did not appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the entire record in this matter, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order in this matter:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Osos Madera, Inc. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 107238, a Class B- contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. Kevin Johnson (“Complainant”) hired Respondent for a remodeling project which converted a three car garage into three bedrooms, a bathroom and a playroom. 3. Although Respondent assured Complainant that its scope of work would take approximately three weeks to perform, after two years it is not completed. 4. Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors alleging possible statutory and regulatory violations by Respondent on the project. 5. In response to the filed complaint, the Registrar of Contractors’ assigned inspector, Scott Deering, performed a jobsite inspection to address the alleged violations. That inspection resulted in Inspector Deering issuing a Corrective Work Order dated July 13, 2006, which required Respondent to timely undertake the following: schedule all required city inspections, determine the cause of leaking skylight installed by Respondent, and correct the leak and resulting damage to the interior drywall and repaint. 6. Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing issued by the Registrar of Contractors, this matter came on for hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency. The commencement of the scheduled hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of an authorized representative of Respondent. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Respondent’s absence. 7. At the hearing, Complainant testified that all required inspections have been performed. 8. Complainant also testified that that Respondent installed a second skylight, which opens electronically, but that installation has resulted in new leaks and additional interior damage. Respondent is found to have not complied with the written directive to properly install a skylight in a workmanlike manner. The originally installed skylight was not the specified skylight. 9. Complainant has contacted Respondent on numerous occasions for remedial repairs to the skylight and the resulting interior damage, but Respondent has not performed the necessary repairs. 10. Respondent is found to have abandoned its contractual obligations owed to Complainant. 11. Respondent is found to have not substantially complied with the written directive to install the skylight in a workmanlike manner. 12. Respondent’s abandonment of its contractual obligations owed to Complainant, its failure to install the specified skylight to minimum workmanship standards, and its failure to substantially comply with the Registrar of Contractors’ written directive are deemed wrongful acts which have substantially injured Complainant. 13. A review of the official records of the Registrar of Contractors reveals that Respondent’s Class B- contracting license was suspended by operation of law on July 20, 2006 for lack of bond. As a result of that suspension, Respondent is not authorized to perform and additional remedial repairs.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar of Contractors has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), Complainant has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C.R2-19-119(A). 3. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 4. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 5. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 6. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 7. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically A.A.C. R4-9-108, as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Respondent’s License No. 107238 shall be revoked on the effective date of the entered Order in this matter. 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, March 5, 2007

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2007, to:

Fidelis V. Garcia, Acting Director Registrar of Contractors Legal Department 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

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

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