ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

06F-P0238-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2006-12-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 6, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared on their own behalves. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Bill Oakman. 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 Recommendation are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent is the holder of a Class B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. There was no objection; therefore, Mrs. Diane Casey was added as a named Complainant in this matter. 3. This is a residential matter where the Complainants entered into an Agreement with the Respondent for the performance of construction work on the Complainants’ residence. The Respondent agreed to perform remodeling work on the Complainants’ residence, to construct two room additions and a garage for $40,000.00. 4. The Respondent began the construction project. During the course of construction, the Complainants paid the Respondent the entire agreed upon sum of $40,000.00. 5. The Respondent ran out of money and was unable to pay its employees and requested more money from the Complainants. When the Complainants refused to pay any additional sums above the agreed upon $40,000.00, the Respondent stopped work on the construction project and left the Complainants’ residence in an unfinished and unprotected condition. 6. The Complainants were dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and refusal to return and complete the construction work on their residence despite the fact that the Respondent had been fully paid the agreed upon sum of $40,000.00 for the completion of all of the agreed upon construction work. 7. When the Respondent failed to comply with the Complainants’ repeated requests to return and complete the construction project, the Complainants filed a formal Complaint and Addendum, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 8. Pursuant to the filing of the formal Complaint and Addendum, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted several on-site inspections and issued two written Corrective Work Orders directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainant’s residence. 9. The Corrective Work Order issued on April 4, 2006, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Master Bedroom: 1. Finish molding, switches, outlets, closet rods, dummy door handles, painting, door to storage room & closet, heating vent and fans. Contractor to correct or finish by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement. 2. Shoe rack installed at an angle and should be straight. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. Storage Room: 1. Finish installing molding, switch plates, wood floors, trim around windows, and fans. Contractor to correct or finish by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement. Robert’s Room: 1. Finish installing wood flooring, electric switch plates, molding, rubber dots on French door, paint door to family room, install fan. Contractor to correct or finish by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement. Family Room: 1. Paint door molding. Contractor to correct or finish by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement. Dining Room: Caulk and paint the molding on the French doors. Contractor to correct or finish by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement. Outside: 2. Finish telephone box, paint house, put edging on corners, finish window trims, replace patio wood board damaged, complete roofing, put box on for electrical wire, reattach security doors, finish wiring club house, replace light that was removed, and fill in the 3’ drop on east side. Contractor to correct or finish by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement.” 10. The May 9, 2006, Corrective Work Order provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “2. Contractor needs to create positive drainage away from the addition at one spot by the faucet per city code. Contractor to correct by appropriate means.” 11. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Respondent failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the two Corrective Work Orders. 12. The Complainants have now had a portion of the corrective action completed by their neighbor at a substantial cost to the Complainants. 13. The Respondent’s actions, in abandoning the construction project, leaving it in an unfinished and unprotected condition, in failing to perform its work in a professional and workmanlike manner, and in failing to comply with the terms and conditions of two Corrective Work Orders, are found to constitute a wrongful act. 14. 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) (7) (Wrongful Act), (23) (Failure to take appropriate corrective action) and (3); namely, Rule R4- 9-108 (Failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner).

RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended 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 the certification. Done this day, December 18, 2006.

______________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ Day of ____________, 2006, to:

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

By ___________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 North Stone Avenue, Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488