ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

08F-T0252-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2008-10-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 6th, 2008; 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: Complainant, Steve Seidel Plumbing, Inc., was represented by Mr. Steve Seidel, President. Respondent, Harvest Builders of Tucson, failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston _____________________________________________________________________ The administrative hearing of this matter was held in the Office of Administrative Hearings, Tucson. 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 herein was during all times material hereto a contractor licensed by and doing business in the State of Arizona, holding Class B License number 102205. That license has a history of being disciplined, and was ultimately revoked by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors on April 8th, 2008 in Case No. T07-1196(W). 2. Complainant, a licensed Arizona plumbing contractor, was contracted by Respondent in 2005 to perform plumbing work at a new residential development in Tucson. Respondent was the general contractor for the development. 3. Complainant completed the contracted plumbing work at three residences known as Lots 1, 4 and 5. Complainant performed pursuant to the contract, and the work was satisfactorily completed on the three lots that are the subject of this Complaint in 2006, and 2007. 4. Complainant invoiced Respondent for the work performed at Lots 1, 4 and 5 shortly upon completion of the work. Respondent failed to pay the Complainant for the plumbing work. 5. Complainant filed the instant Complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors on August 23rd, 2007, seeking payment. 6. Citation and Complaint issued from the Registrar of Contractors on March 26th, 2008, citing Respondent with possible violations of A.R.S. 32-1154.A.7, 11, 15 and 13 (namely, A.R.S. 32-1124.B.) 7. Respondent filed a Written Answer to the Citation and Complaint on April 8th, 2008, acknowledging that it did owe Complainant the debt mentioned in the Complaint. 8. The administrative hearing was duly scheduled, noticed and held in the Office of Administrative Hearings. Complainant Mr. Steve Seidel appeared and testified at the hearing, and administrative notice was taken of the agency file in this matter. 9. Mr. Seidel’s credible testimony and the invoices of record proved that Respondent owes Complainant $2,055.00 for the plumbing work performed at the three residences. 10. The agency record also proves that Respondent was doing business under the name of “Harvest Builders of Tucson,” while the proper name for the licensee on record with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors was “Harvest Builders.” 11. The agency record also contained proof that the Respondent’s contract and fax memo failed to include its assigned contractor’s license number preceded by “ROC.” 12. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior license record with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

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.7, 11, 15 and 13 (namely, A.R.S. 32-1124.B). 3. The greater weight of evidence proved that Respondent violated A.R.S 32-1154.A.11 by failing to pay Complainant $2,055.00 for the plumbing work performed by Complainant on the projects being developed by Respondent as a licensed Arizona contractor. There is no sufficient proof of any inability to pay on the part of the Respondent. Respondent stated in the Written Answer that a poor economy had prevented him from paying, but the hearing record is devoid of any evidence tending to prove that assertion. 4. Respondent violated A.R.S. 32-1154.15 by contracting in a name other than the name appearing on the license records with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. 5. Respondent violated A.R.S. 32-1124.B., and therefore A.R.S. 32- 1154.A.13, by failing to include its license number preceded by “ROC” on its fax memo and contract. 6. There is no evidence of any violation of A.R.S. 32-1154.A.7 (wrongful or fraudulent act) independent of the other violations already concluded herein to have occurred. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that Respondent’s Class B License number 102205 be revoked 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 after the date that certification. Done this day, October 7th, 2008.

______________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

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

Registrar of Contractors Armando Contreras, Acting Director 3838 N. Central Ave., Ste. 400 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1906

By ___________________________

-----------------------

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