ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

08F-P0184-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-04-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 2, 2009; 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: Complainant Mr. S. Grant Brewer represented himself. Respondent Mr. Jimmie Dixon, Jr. failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston _____________________________________________________________________ The administrative hearing of this matter was held in the Office of Administrative Hearings. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted to the record. Based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent Mr. Jimmie Dixon, Jr., doing business as J R Dixon and Sons Roofing, was during the time of the contractual relationship between the parties a contractor licensed by and doing business in the State of Arizona holding Class C-42 License number 165131. 2. Complainant, Mr. S. Grant Brewer, contracted with Respondent on October 1, 2007 for Respondent to install a new roof at Complainant’s Show Low, Arizona residence for $11,000.00. The written proposals prepared by Respondent nowhere contain his license number preceded by “ROC.” 3. On October 2, 2007, Complainant wrote a check to Respondent for $5,500.00 representing one-half of the contract price. Complainant’s wife decided she wanted an upgraded shingle to be installed and on October 12, 2007, Complainant wrote Respondent another check for $4,000.00. The check for $4,000.00 is drawn upon the account of Falcon Management Company, LLC, which is Complainant’s company. 4. After the Contract was agreed and signed, the Show Low area had several weeks of good weather, but Respondent never performed the installation. Complainant repeatedly contacted Respondent to ask when he intended to do the work and Respondent repeatedly gave promises but never performed the work. 5. Complainant filed the instant Complaint on January 2, 2008. Citation and Complaint issued on July 17, 2008, citing Respondent with possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.1, 7, and 13 (namely A.R.S. § 32-1124.B). Respondent filed a written Answer on August 1, 2008, still promising to do the work. The work still had not been done by the time of the hearing, nor had Respondent returned any money to Complainant. 6. Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors which includes multiple prior suspensions and a prior revocation in Case No. P07-0347. The subject license is currently revoked. 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, and 13 (namely A.R.S. § 32-1124.B). 3. The undisputed substantial and credible evidence proved that Respondent had taken Complainant’s money and abandoned the project without any legal excuse in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.1. 4. The undisputed credible and substantial evidence proved that Respondent failed to include his Registrar of Contractors License information on his proposals in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.13 and A.R.S. § 32-1124.B. 5. There is no evidence of any other wrongful or fraudulent action in this case in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.7 independent of the other violations already concluded. 6. A.R.S. § 32-1156.01 allows an Administrative Law Judge to recommend that an order for restitution be made to a party who is injured by an action of the licensee. In the facts of this case, restitution is warranted; however, the license is already revoked. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that Respondent’s Class C-42 License number 165131 be revoked on the effective date of this Order. It is further recommended that in the event the Registrar receives written proof that Respondent has paid the Complainant $9,500.00 on or before the effective date of this Order (40 days after the date of service appearing on the Registrar’s certification on the Order), then the above- provided license suspension shall not occur and in lieu thereof the Respondent’s license shall be suspended for a period of three consecutive days commencing on the effective date of this Order for the violation of A.R.S. § 32-1124.B and A.R.S. § 32-1154.13. It is further recommended that in the event that the Registrar receives written proof of the above-provided restitution having been made and the Respondent submits written proof to the Registrar that Respondent has taken all necessary steps to ensure that all of its business related forms and documents fully comply with all requirements of A.R.S. § 32- 1124.B. on or before the effective date of this Order, then Citation and Complaint P08-0184 shall be closed. 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 after the date of that certification. Done this day, April 8, 2009.

______________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2009, to:

Registrar of Contractors William A. Mundell c/o Legal Department 3838 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012, Director

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 704 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 628-5488 Fax: (520) 628-5575 www.azoah.com