ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-P0249-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2008-03-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 12, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through its authorized representative, Bryan Brewer. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Jon Mosly. 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 Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At the onset of the scheduled hearing Bryan Brewer was added as a named Complainant without objection from the Respondent. There was no dispute that the Construction Agreement for the work at issue was between Mr. Brewer, the qualifying party and one of the owners of Dorado Development, as an individual and the Respondent. 2. The Respondent is the holder of a Class KB-02 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 3. This is a residential matter where the Respondent performed framing work on a new residence being constructed by the Complainant. 4. Mr. Brewer was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to complete and correct its work to his satisfaction despite his demand that it do so. 5. When the Respondent failed to comply with the Complainant’s demand, the Complainant filed a formal Complaint as Bryan Brewer Dorado Development, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 6. Pursuant to the filing of the formal Complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written Corrective Work Order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainant’s residence. 7. The Corrective Work Order provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “6. The interior of the house can be seen around the dormers. You could not see outside but here were gaps in the chinking at the south side of the west bedroom. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. 7. Fascia by laundry room is cut wrong and is dented. The dents were not there but the corner was butted up and all the rest of the corners were miter cuts. Contractor to correct by appropriate means the miter cut. 23. Upper level east end corner roof log area. This was an area that was too high to look at, at this time due to heavy winds and a safety issue. No action required at this time. 30. Bumpy spots in T and G and some spots at joints look bad. There were two spots at the upper catwalk by the light. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. 33. T and G tapered spots don’t look good and no trim was installed. A. The tapered spots were at the log ends in the great room. Contractor to correct by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement.” 8. The assigned Inspector found the remaining items of the Complaint were either within applicable industry and workmanship standards or not the responsibility of the Respondent. 9. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Respondent has substantially complied with the terms of the Corrective Work Order and the items set forth in the Corrective Work Order have been corrected to within applicable industry and workmanship standards. 10. The credible evidence or record is insufficient, and fails, to support a finding that the remaining items of the Complaint at issue fail to comply with applicable industry and workmanship standards.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record supported a finding that the Respondent has substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the Corrective Work Order issued in this matter. 2. The credible evidence of record failed to support a finding that any item not set forth in the written Corrective Work Order required correction by the Respondent.

RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended this matter be dismissed. 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, February 29, 2008.

______________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ Day of ____________, 2008, to:

Registrar of Contractors Fidelis V. Garcia 3838 N. Central Ave., Ste. 400 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1906

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

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