ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-S0231-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2008-05-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 23rd, 2008; 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Complainant, Ms. Bonnie Dalzine, represented herself. Respondent, Navarrete Construction, LLC, was represented by Mr. Conrad Navarrete, owner. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston _____________________________________________________________________ The administrative hearing of this matter was held in the Office of Administrative Hearings, Tucson, on April 23rd, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted to the record, and, based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent, Navarrete Construction, LLC, is, and during all time material hereto was, a contractor licensed by and doing business in the State of Arizona, holding Class K-61 License number 221130. 2. Complainant, Ms. Bonnie Dalzine, purchased a home in Safford, Arizona, in 2007, which she intended to remodel and sale for a profit. To that end, she entered into a contract with a man named Michael Marquez for a portion of the remodeling work. Mr. Marquez is an unsavory character who had actually been incarcerated during a portion of the time relevant to this case. 3. Complainant and Mr. Marquez were working off a written Job Work Order that was prepared by Mr. Marquez. Nowhere on the document is the name of this Respondent. The Job Work Order does not appear to be on Respondent stationery, or official business letterhead. It is a generic work order, on which Mr. Marquez himself merely printed the Respondent’s license number. 4. After contracting with Complainant, Mr. Marquez did not perform the contracted work. This caused much monetary expense to Complainant. She filed the instant Complaint in the Registrar of Contractors’ office on May 30th, 2007. In her Complaint, the Complainant writes how most of the time she had dealt only with Mr. Marquez. Only on a couple of occasions, late in the relationship with Mr. Marquez, did she indicate that Respondent’s owner, Mr. Conrad Navarrete was involved in the work or discussions. 5. The case was assigned to Registrar of Contractors Inspector Mike Nieves, who testified at the administrative hearing. No job site inspection was conducted, and Inspector Nieves testified that he could not ascertain to his satisfaction that Respondent/Mr. Navarrete had ever contracted with this Complainant. 6. It has been Mr. Navarrete’s consistent position throughout this dispute that he never contracted with Complainant, and that Mr. Marquez had wrongfully, and without permission or Mr. Navarrete’s knowledge, used the Respondent’s license number when he contracted with Complainant. 7. Mr. Navarrete does not deny knowing Mr. Marquez. They had been friends since childhood, and this accounts for how Mr. Marquez came to have the license number. Likely, he took it off Mr. Navarrete’s business card. 8. Once Complainant became aware that the license number was under Mr. Navarrete’s name, she contacted him about the trouble with the contract. Mr. Navarrete did indicate to her that he would try to see to it that the job was properly completed to avoid anyone having to go to court. He did this, not as an admission of wrongdoing which Complainant suggests, but simply to avoid anyone being involved in litigation. As he knew Mr. Marquez, he meant to try to use their friendship as leverage to persuade Mr. Marquez to live up to his agreement with Complainant. 9. Mr. Navarrete was on the job site twice. Once, Mr. Marquez had called him as a friend telling Mr. Navarrete that he could use his help installing some windows on a project. Mr. Navarrete obliged Mr. Marquez and went to the job to help one day. Mr. Navarrete was on the job a second time only after Mr. Marquez called him to come and inspect some of his work. Once there, an argument broke out between Mr. Marquez and Complainant. 10. Complainant even concedes that Mr. Navarrete has consistently told her that Mr. Marquez was never authorized to use his license number. 11. Work has since been completed by others to the point where the City of Safford issued a Certificate of Occupancy on July 23rd, 2007.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This administrative hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. 32-1156, and A.R.S. 41-1092. 2. Respondent is charged in the instant Citation and Complaint with possible violations of A.R.S. 32-1154.A.1, 7, 10, 14, and 3 (namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108, Workmanship Standards). 3. The record did not establish sufficient evidence to find that this Respondent entered into a contract with the Complainant for the work which is the subject of her Complaint. In fact, the record proved that Mr. Marquez wrongfully appropriated the license number to his fraudulent use, unbeknownst to Mr. Navarrete.

RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that Citation and Complaint S07-0231, together with the Complaint on which it is based, be dismissed on the effective date of this Order (40 days after the date of service appearing on the Registrar’s certification on the Order). In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, then the effective date of the Order shall be 40 days form the date of that certification. Done this day, April 30th, 2008.

______________________________________ Grant Winston 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 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488