ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-M0226-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-06-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 5, 2007. APPEARANCES: Sarah L. Bruner appeared personally and was represented by her attorney, Ken Willmot, Esq. 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 Recommended Order:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Home Sweet Home Construction, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 204122, a Class KB-02 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. On or about June 13, 2006, Sarah Bruner (“Complainant”) entered into a written contract with Respondent for a remodeling project, which involved constructing a walk-in shower in an existing ½ bathroom, retiling work, resurfacing work and the rerouting of an attic access. The total contract price was $20,074.27. The remaining balance of the contract price is $1,957.10. 3. On or about July 10, 2006, Respondent began demolition work. 4. Complainant subsequently filed a written complaint with the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) alleging statutory and regulatory violations by Respondent. 5. In response to the filed complaint, the Registrar’s assigned inspector, Ted Gerold, performed an inspection of Complainant’s residence on November 6, 2006. That inspection resulted in Inspector Gerold issuing a Corrective Work Order dated November 8, 2006, which required Respondent to timely perform the following work:

1) Have all necessary inspections and comply with any and all orders from the local building authority. 2) Complete hall bath, hall, and laundry per contract. 3) Complete garage skuttle (sic) access. 4) Remove all construction debris and residue from project. 5) Remove concrete splatter from stucco and gate components. 6) Address all water damage to master closet, including carpet, baseboard, and walls.

6. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint alleging that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(1), (2), (7), (23) and (3), namely R4-9-108. The Registrar forwarded the case to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for formal hearing. 7. On May 1, 2007, Inspector Gerold telephoned Complainant to ask her about Respondent’s compliance with the Corrective Work Order. Complainant told the inspector that Respondent has not performed any of the required work. As a result of Respondent’s failure to comply with the Corrective Work Order, Inspector Gerold did not perform a prehearing jobsite inspection of Complainant’s residence. 8. The commencement of the scheduled hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of an authorized representative or attorney for Respondent. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Respondent’s absence. 9. Respondent is found to have abandoned the subject project. 10. Respondent’s abandonment of the project and its failure to comply with the Corrective Work Order were wrongful acts that substantially injured Complainant. 11. Inspector Gerold’s testimony and a review of the official records of the Registrar reflect that there are 101 pending complaints against Respondent’s contracting license. License No. 204122 has been revoked.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar 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. 4. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. 5. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. 6. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23), as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. 7. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely R4-9-108, as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. 8. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(C), the prior revocation of Respondent’s contracting license does not deprive the Registrar of jurisdiction to impose discipline on that license for the above-described violations.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Respondent’s License No. 204122 shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. M07-0226. 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, June 21, 2007

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

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

Fidelis V. Garcia, 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