ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-T1234-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2008-04-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 1, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through Richard Ablin. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Kevin Caffall. 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. Respondent is the holder of a Class KB-02 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent entered into an Agreement to perform remodeling and painting work on the Complainants’ residence. 3. During the course of construction the parties’ personal relationship deteriorated rapidly as the Complainants became increasingly dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship. 4. On or about April 2, 2007, the parties became embroiled in an argument regarding the Respondent’s claim for the final draw of $7,992.00 that the Respondent claimed as due and owing and the Complainants’ claim that the Respondent’s construction work was unsatisfactory. 5. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Complainants then terminated the Respondent from the incomplete construction project as a result of the dispute and the Complainants the obtained a Restraining Order against the Respondent. 6. The Complainant then filed a formal Complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 7. The formal Complaint provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “The work was not completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. When an attempt was made to discuss this with Kevin Caffall, the contractor, at the jobsite on 2, April 2007, Mr. Caffall stated he was finished and wanted his money. The basis for the claim made has been documented with detailed photographs at the jobsite.” 8. Pursuant to the filing of the formal Complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection. 9. The Inspector moved to close the complaint on the following basis: “ 1. Contractor not complete: Homeowner took over job and work done by Major Electric. Contractor claims denied access. 2. Permits: Homeowner chose to have Major Electric to get permit and final inspection of safety issues. 3. Unsafe conditions: Homeowner had Major Electric address concerns.” 10. The Complainants disagreed with the Inspector’s action and requested an administrative hearing. 11. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Complainants utilizing alternative contractors caused the electrical work and the painting work to be corrected and completed prior to the hearing. No further work on the construction project is required. 12. The Complainants claim for restitution, for their costs of completing and correcting the unfinished electric work and their costs of causing the painting to be redone, and the Respondent’s claim for the final draw under the parties’ written Agreement are found to constitute a good faith monetary dispute which will necessary involve a monetary adjudication and which should be resolved, if at all, in a civil court of competent jurisdiction. 13. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the portion of the painting work completed by the Respondent before the parties’ dispute of April 2, 2007, failed to comply with applicable industry and workmanship standards and the poor painting work constitutes a violation of the charged provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154 A (3). However, the fact that the Complainants denied the Respondent a reasonable opportunity to properly correct substandard painting work must be considered in mitigation. 14. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior clear License record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108 (Failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner). RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended, commencing on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Respondent’s Class KB-02 License shall be placed on disciplinary probation for a period of thirty (30) days. 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, April 16, 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 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 704 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 628-5488 www.azoah.com