ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-M1918-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-11-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 21, 2007 APPEARANCES: The Complainant, Anthony Schultz, represented himself. Brent Ford, Managing Member, appeared for the Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Allen Reed _____________________________________________________________________ Findings of Fact 1. There are no disputed facts in this case. 2. In November,2006, the parties entered a contract whereby the Respondent was to complete landscaping at the Complainant’s home in Gilbert, Arizona. 3. The Complainant paid the Respondent $1,772.30 (50% of the contract price) toward the work. 4. The Respondent failed to perform any work. 5. According to the Respondent, he was unable to perform the work or repay the money because of another contract which failed to pay $20,000.00 which he was owed. This impacted on the Respondent’s business as well as on other clients beside the instant Complainant. The Respondent has been attempting to reimburse other clients with the Complainant being one of the last ones. 6. The Complainant testified about numerous false promises and broken appointments by the Respondent. The Respondent did not contest this testimony. 7. The Complainant did some of the landscaping himself and had to have the rest done by another contractor. Conclusions of Law The Citation and Complaint alleges violation of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(1), abandonment and (A)(7), a wrongful act with substantial injury. 1. The facts clearly sustain the charged violations which the Respondent does not contest. 2. The Respondent requested to have until January 20, 2008, to repay the Complainant who did not oppose the request. Recommended Order It is recommended commencing the effective date of the Order issued in this matter[1] but no earlier than January 20, 2008, that the Respondent’s Class K-21 license no. 219765, shall be revoked unless the Respondent pays the amount of One Thousand-Seven Hundred- Seventy Two and 30/100’s ($1,772.30) Dollars to the Complainant. It is further recommended that if the Respondent timely pays the Complainant as required by the Order issued in this matter, then the license revocation shall not take place and the case shall be closed.[2]

Done this day, November 21, 2007

______________________________________ Allen Reed 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 ___________________________

----------------------- [1] Forty (40) days from the date of the Order or from the date of certification if certified by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings. [2] The ROC website shows the Respondent has six open complaints and nine which were resolved or settled. It makes no sense to impose additional sanctions (such as probation) since this record should speak for itself. Suspension of the license would possibly keep the Respondent from making restitution required in other cases.

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

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