ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

06F-M1991-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2006-12-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 16, 2006. APPEARANCES: John Oper appeared personally. Signature Custom Cabinets, L.L.C. did not appear. A Plus Garage Cabinets, L.L.C did not appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommenced Order:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Signature Custom Cabinets, L.L.C. (“Respondent Signature”) is the holder of License No. 186587, a Class C-30 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. A Plus Garage Cabinets, L.L.C. (“Respondent A Plus”) is the holder of License No. 168722, a Class C-30 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 3. In July 2005, John Oper (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent Signature for the construction of new kitchen cabinets for the contract price of $15,000.00. Respondent Signature had previously constructed bathroom cabinets for Complainant. 4. Complainant paid Respondent Signature a down payment of $7,500.00. Prior to the completion of the kitchen cabinets, Complainant also paid Respondent Signature the sum of $3,500.00 due to the latter having cash flow problems. The outstanding balance of the contract price is $4,000.00. 5. Although Respondent Signature assured Complainant that the kitchen cabinets would be manufactured and installed by August 16, 2005, Complainant was still trying to get Respondent Signature to perform punch list items in January 2006. 6. On or about April 12, 2006, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors alleging statutory and regulatory violations by Respondent Signature. 7. In response to the filed complaint, the Registrar of Contractors’ assigned inspector, Paul Terek, performed a jobsite inspection at Complainant’s residence to view Respondent Signature’s workmanship. 8. Inspector Terek’s jobsite inspection resulted in the issuance of a Corrective Work Order dated May 19, 2006, which directed Respondent Signature to perform remedial repairs on all items of complaint, with the exception of paragraph 5, as follows:

1) There are several spots where blisters appear, due to debris under veneer, air bubbles or defects in the substrate and the Contractor should correct this item. 2) There are several spots where hair like fiber(s) are visible in the clear-coat and the Contractor should correct this item. 3) There is some separation of the veneer on doors OOO and BBB, drawer fronts YY and ZZ and the Contractor should correct by appropriate means. On some of the cabinet door faces the veneer is curled up along the edges and the Contractor should correct this item. 4) There are several areas where the veneer has small voids that should be corrected by appropriate means. 5) In this Inspector’s opinion, the scratch appeared to be minor and there is no way to determine who is responsible for the scratch so the Contractor is not required to take any action on this item. 6) There are several areas where the application of the stain was done “cross-grain” or is excessive and the Contractor should correct this issue. 7) The veneer applied to the sides and ends of the doors does not match the veneer on the door face and the Contractor should correct. 8) The veneer applied to the inside of the doors does not match the veneer on the door face and the Contractor should correct this item. 9) The veneer on the front of the boxes does not match the veneer on the door faces and the Contractor should correct this item. 10) The baseboards/toe-kicks do not match the veneer on the door faces and the Contractor should correct this item. 11) The stain on the cabinets should be consistent and the Contractor should correct the variation in the color of the stain so that the cabinets closely match each other. 12) The pattern in the wood-grain is not consistent with the surrounding cabinets. The Contractor should correct the wood- grain variation on cabinets RR, NN, PP and OOO so that they are consistent as per the contract. 13) There is an inconsistent finish on the cabinet boxes and the Contractor should correct this item. 14) The bottom rail on cabinet QQ should be one continuous piece and the Contractor is to correct this item. 15) The Contractor should correct the nail holes where the cabinet bottom is nailed to the bottom rails.

9. Respondent Signature failed to comply with the Registrar of Contractors’ Corrective Work Order. 10. The Registrar of Contractors referred Case Nos. M06-1991 against Respondent Signature and M06-1991W against Respondent A Plus for formal hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearing, an independent agency. 11. The commencement of the formal hearing was delayed for a short period of time to allow for the late arrival of authorized representatives for Respondents. After that delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Respondents’ absences. 12. Respondent Signature’s workmanship described in the Corrective Work Order does not meet minimum workmanship standards 13. Respondent Signature’s failure to comply with the Registrar of Contractors’ Corrective Work Order and its deficient workmanship are wrongful acts which have substantially injured Complainant. At the hearing, Complainant presented evidence of a proposal from another licensed contractor for performing the required repairs to Respondent Signature’s deficient workmanship. The proposal contained a project cost in the amount of $6,480.00 for the remedial repairs. 14. There is no evidence that Respondent A Plus had contracted with Complainant for the kitchen cabinet project or that it had performed any work on the project. 15. A review of the official records of the Registrar of Contractors reveals that Respondent Signature’s License No. 186587 was revoked on April 26, 2006 in Case No. 05-2575. That license was revoked a second time on July 6, 2006 in Case No. G06-0757 and a third time on July 21, 2006 in Case No. 06-1221. The license also has a Residential Contractors Recovery Fund claim pending against it.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar of Contractors has jurisdiction over Respondents and the subject matter in these cases. 2. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), Complainant has the burden of proof in these matters. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 3. The evidence of record demonstrated that Respondent Signature violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 4. The evidence of record demonstrated that Respondent Signature violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 5. The evidence of record demonstrated that Respondent Signature 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. 6. The evidence of record failed to demonstrate any violation by Respondent A Plus of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 7. The evidence of record failed to demonstrate any violation by Respondent A Plus of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 8. The evidence of record failed to demonstrate any violation by Respondent A Plus 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 ORDERS

Case No. M06-1991 Respondent Signature’s License No. 186587 is revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. M06-1991. In the event of certification of the 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.

Case No. M06-1991W The Citation and Complaint in Case No. M06-1991W against Respondent A Plus is dismissed. In the event of certification of the 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, December 6, 2006

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2006, 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