ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-G1626-ROC-com · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-01-29

STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 29, 2009 APPEARANCES: Complainant failed to appear. Attorney Denise Troy appeared for Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Michael G. Wales _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent, Pulte Home Corporation is, and during all times material hereto was, a contractor licensed by, and doing business in, the State of Arizona, holding a Class B License, No. 064206. 2. The administrative hearing held in this matter was a compliance hearing held pursuant to a Notice of Compliance Hearing issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors on December 24, 2008. That Notice directed that a compliance hearing be held to determine whether the Respondent had substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the Registrar’s April 25th Order. 3. The April 25, 2008 Decision and Order referred to by the Registrar in the Notice was an Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation providing for the suspension of Respondent’s Class B License upon the effective date of the Registrar’s order until the Registrar received proof that the Respondent accomplished the corrective work as set forth in Findings of Fact 8(a) through 8(g). The effective date of the Order was August 23, 2008. 4. On September 12, 2008, after not receiving any proof that Respondent had performed the corrective work, the Registrar suspended Respondent’s license. 5. On September 17, 2008, the Registrar quashed the suspension and set the instant matter for a Compliance Hearing. 6. The Administrative Law Judge’s Findings of Fact 8(a) through 8(g), adopted by the April 25 Order, set forth the following requirements for remedial work: “The weight of the evidence of record was sufficient to support a finding that the following constitute construction deficiencies attributable to Respondent, which require remedial work: a. Broken roof tiles on the roof b. Mismatched paint touch-up on the exterior railing, as well as paint chips. c. Cable outlets are not a finished installation. d. Complainant did not receive all of the promised landscape plants. She was shorted on seven (7) five gallon plants and five one (1) gallon plants. e. There is paint residue in a specified area of the crushed granite landscape. f. The stucco repair on the gable, wherein the vent was replaced, fails to adequately match the texture of the adjacent existing stucco.

g. The paint touch-up on the exterior railing fails to adequately match the existing paint and there are paint chips and scratches on the railing.”

. 7. The commencement of the instant hearing, scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on this date, was delayed 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of Complainant or an authorized representative or attorney for Complainant. Complainant failed to appear individually or by proper authorized or legal representative. Additionally, Complainant had not requested to appear telephonically. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in the Complainant’s absence. 8. At the hearing, Respondent’s customer service representative Moses Valdez testified that all items set forth above as “Findings of Fact 8(a) – (g)” had been corrected to the satisfaction of Complainant. Respondent also presented this tribunal with Exhibits 1 and 2, which were work orders reflecting the above-enumerated items were corrected by Respondent. The Exhibits reflected that Complainant had executed both documents indicating that the work had been completed and had been completed to her satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1154 et. sec. and A.R.S. § 41-1092. 2. Based on the undisputed testimony of Mr. Valdez and the information contained in Exhibits 1 and 2, it is concluded that Respondent did substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the Registrar’s April 25th Order. Thus, it is appropriate, and warranted, that this matter be closed without discipline.

. . .

RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, finding substantial compliance by Respondent, it is hereby recommended that this matter be closed without discipline. Done this day, January 29, 2009.

Office of Administrative Hearings

__________________________ Michael G. Wales Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2009, to:

Registrar of Contractors Armando Contreras 3838 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012

By ___________________________

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

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