ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

08F-L0020-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2008-08-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 12 and August 5, 2008. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through her attorney, Phillip G. Krueger. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Dana R. Stoker. 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 B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors on March 16, 2007. 2. The Respondent’s Class B- License was suspended on or about June 20, 2008, by the Registrar of Contractors for lack of bond. 3. This is a residential matter where on or about March 30, 2006, the Complainant entered into a construction Contract with the Respondent for the construction of a new residence on the Complainant’s lot for the sum of $230,000.00. 4. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the building permit for the residence was issued by the local building authority on or about November 8, 2006, and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued by the local building authority on or about June 6, 2007. 5. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to properly correct its work despite her demand that it do so. 6. When the Respondent failed to comply with the Complainant’s demand the Complainant filed a formal Complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 7. Pursuant to the filing of the formal Complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a seven item written Corrective Work Order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainant’s residence. 8. The assigned Agency Inspector testified that the there was no pre- hearing inspection for this matter because the Complainant had informed him that the workmanship issues set forth in the Corrective Work Order were no longer at issue. 9. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Respondent entered into a construction Contract and performed construction work on the Complainant’s residence before the Respondent had obtained its Class B- License in violation of the State’s licensing laws. 10. The Respondent’s actions, in entering into a construction Contract without a license, in performing construction work without a license and in failing to perform its work in a professional and workmanlike manner, are found to constitute a wrongful act. 11. The Complainant asserts that she has suffered an economic loss as a result of the Respondent’s unlicensed activity and seeks restitution for the “approximately fifty ($50,000.00) thousand dollars” that she paid to the Respondent for its role in the construction of her residence. 12. The instant matter is an administrative, disciplinary proceeding relating to the Respondent’s Contractor’s License. The Registrar’s role in this matter is to determine whether a violation of this State’s Contracting Laws has occurred and, if so, impose a proper disciplinary sanction. Neither the filing of a Complaint with the Registrar, nor a demonstration that a contractor violated state law, vests a Complainant in the right to receive any particular individualized relief or order imposing any particular discipline. The determination of whether the Complainant has suffered an economic loss and the extent of any economic loss that the Complainant has suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unlicensed activity will necessarily involve a monetary adjudication and must be resolved, if at all, in a civil court of competent jurisdiction. 13. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior 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) (7) (Wrongful Act), and (20) (Subsequent discovery of facts which if known at the time of the issuance of a license would have been grounds to deny the issuance of a license). RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended the Respondent’s Class B- License be revoked. 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, August 20, 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 Fax: (520) 628-5575 www.azoah.com