ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

09F-S0191-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-10-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|CRAIG TAYLOR AND CATHY SUE TAYLOR | | Docket No.: 09F-S0191-ROC | |COMPLAINANTS | | | |v. | | | |License No. 176890, Class K-53 | | | |Brian Clar Vaught and Abelina Mary | |ADMINISTRATIVE | |Vaught dba | |LAW JUDGE DECISION | |A B C PUMP AND WELL DRILLING (PTR) | | | |RESPONDENT | | | | | | |

HEARING: October 21, 2009; 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Complainants Mr. Craig and Ms. Cathy Sue Taylor represented themselves. Respondent Mr. Brian Clar Vaught, represented himself. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston _____________________________________________________________________ Based on the entire record the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This is a residential matter where the Complainants contracted with Respondent Mr. Brian Clar Vaught for the Respondents to drill a water well on the Complainants’ property in St. David, Arizona, then install a pump and electrical power to it. The contract was entered into in June, 2006. Complainants eventually paid Respondents $21,500.00 on the contract price. 2. Respondents failed to timely start the project. In fact, after Complainants paid Respondents $7,700.00 up front as a deposit to start the project, Respondents then never showed up to begin the work for nearly a year. 3. Around May, 2007, Respondents finally started working on the well. Once Respondent Mr. Vaught started the work he continued to demand more money on the contract under threats to pull off the job if he was not paid more. 4. At one point in the construction the Respondents lost a drill bit down the hole and had to fish it out. The greater weight of credible evidence proved that in doing so, the Respondents injected some sort of viscous substance down the hole which contaminated the well. There is no credible evidence that the substance was naturally occurring in the hole. 5. The earth around the well caved in and Complainants were forced to expend an additional $318.00 to bring in dirt to fill the hole. 6. The water produced from the well never became potable, and was always dirty and filled with grit. The greater weight of evidence proved that this was a result of Respondents’ poor workmanship. 7. Notice is taken of Respondents’ prior license record with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors and it is a poor one. The license is currently revoked for other poor workmanship including defects in the work and for practices such as taking customers’ money and then doing little to no work while demanding more money. 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. Respondents are charged in the instant Citation and Complaint with possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.7 and 3 (namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108, Workmanship Standards). 3. The greater weight of credible evidence proved that Respondents violated the workmanship standards of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors set forth at A.A.C. R4-9-108, and therefore violated A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.3. 4. Respondents’ taking of the Complainants’ money and refusing to make restitution for the defectively drilled well was a wrongful act in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.7. 5. Respondents’ license deserves to be revoked in the facts of this case. Complainants may file a claim for recovery from the Arizona Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund and, if otherwise eligible, receive an award for actual damages.

FINDINGS OF FACT In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that Respondents’ Class K-53 License number 176890 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, the effective date of the Order shall be 40 days after the date of that certification. Done this 26 day of October, 2009.

______________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By ___________________________

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

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