ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

09F-1527-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-08-24

STATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 5, 2009

APPEARANCES: Tim Hanson appeared on behalf of Complainants; Respondent was represented by its Senior Vice President and Qualifying Party Chad J. Hoppe. ROC Inspector Craig Williams was also present.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Eric A. Bryant _____________________________________________________________________

Complainants Tim and Lisa Hanson bring this complaint, filed September 12, 2008, regarding a screen door sold to them and installed at their home by Respondent The Door and Screen Company of America, Inc. Complainants claim that the door is defective because it is “falling apart.” Respondent has raised a defense concerning the length of time that it took Complainants to file the complaint. Respondent contends that the complaint was not filed within the two-year complaint deadline imposed by Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 32-1155(A). On the date noted above, the hearing commenced with testimony from both parties about when the work in the complaint was completed, so that a decision as to the two-year period could be made by the Administrative Law Judge. Chad Hoppe testified that final payment for the work was received January 27, 2006 and, therefore, the work was completed on or before that date. Complainants did not contest this.[1] Based on the complaint file and testimony at hearing, the evidence clearly shows that the work complained about in Complainant’s complaint was completed on or before January 27, 2006. The complaint was filed September 12, 2008, more than two years later. Arizona Revised Statutes § 32-1155(A) imposes a two-year deadline for filing complaints against contractors.[2] This period commences when the work is completed, which in this case was before January 27, 2006. Thus, complaint 09-1527 was not filed within the two-year period allowed by statute. The Registrar of Contractors does not have authority to hear the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Citation and Complaint against The Door and Screen Company of America, Inc. in case 09-1527 be dismissed.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the order will be 35 days from the date of that certification.

Done this 24th day of August 2009.

Office of Administrative Hearings

______________________________ Eric A. Bryant Administrative Law Judge

. . .

Copies mailed this ___ day of August 2009 to:

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

By ___________________________ ----------------------- [1] Although Complainants raised evidence that they made a payment to Respondent in late September 2007, the evidence shows that this payment was for work at a different property than the one associated with this complaint. [2] A.R.S. § 32-1155(A) provides in part: Upon the filing of a written complaint with the registrar charging a licensee with the commission, within two years prior to the date of filing the complaint, of an act that is cause for suspension or revocation of a license, the registrar after investigation may issue a citation or upon written request of the complainant may issue a citation directing the licensee, within ten days after service of the citation upon the licensee, to appear by filing with the registrar the licensee's written answer to the citation and complaint showing cause, if any, why the licensee's license should not be suspended or revoked.

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826