ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

09F-T0321-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-09-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 27, 2009; 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Complainants Ms. Guadalupe Martinez and Mr. Nicholas W. Gutierrez represented themselves. Respondent Ceasar Ramos General Builders, Inc. was represented by Mr. Ceasar Ramos, owner. 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 hired Respondent to perform exterior remodeling at Complainants’ Tucson home. The remodeling included a wraparound covered patio, and also included electrical, plumbing, roofing and painting as parts of the new patio. The original contract amount was $27,755.00. 2. Complainants signed an original written contract, but Respondent kept the contract, and Complainants were never given a copy until at the administrative hearing, although they had asked Respondent to provide them one. 3. As Respondent began working on the project he continually added new items saying they were necessary and would raise the price of the contract. Complainants paid Respondent more than the original amount of the contract based on his demands for more money. Eventually the Complainants grew aware that Respondent was simply bilking them out of as much money as he could, and never intended to complete the project for the price he agreed to in the contract. Complainants eventually paid Respondent $48,700.00 and Respondent still had not completed the project when Complainants fired him off the job. 4. Respondent also failed to pay the stucco subcontractor on the job, and Complainants were forced to pay him $2,800.00 which was part of the money they had already paid Respondent to pay the stucco subcontractor. 5. Respondent’s failure to timely complete the project for the price stated in the contract also resulted in interior damage due to water leaking into the house from the unfinished portion of the patio roof where it was to adjoin the house. Complainants were forced to hire another contractor to repair this part of the project including the water damage. 6. Complainants also were forced to hire another electrical contractor to perform the electrical work in the project that Respondent failed to complete, and pay additional for completion of the sheetrock and mud portion of the project to be completed. 7. Mr. Ramos also lied to the Complainants about how much of the project had been approved by the City of Tucson Inspectors, and this forced Complainants to eventually return to the City and obtain new permits and new inspections. 8. In addition to his failure to provide the Complainants with a copy of the written contract, Respondent’s owner Mr. Ceasar Ramos also failed to return the Complainants’ plans for the project, which they had paid for, despite their demands for him to do so. 9. In sum, the greater weight of evidence proved that Respondent’s owner Mr. Ramos entered into a written contract for a project and then failed to complete the project for the amount stated. He never provided his customers a copy of the signed contract, failed to obtain necessary inspections, lied to the Complainants, and repeatedly added more to the scope of the project without prior approval or written change orders so he could make more demands for money. 10. Additionally, notice taken of Respondent’s prior license record with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors reveals that Respondent was contracting on this project while the Respondent’s Class B- License number 156295 was suspended. Respondent’s license was suspended from September 1, 2008 through November 7, 2008, and the Respondent was working on this project in September, 2008. 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, 9, 18, and 3 (namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108, Workmanship Standards). 3. There is insufficient evidence to prove that Respondent abandoned this project in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.1 only because he continued to perform work on the project as long as he could successfully extract additional amounts of money from the Complainants. When Complainants eventually became aware of Respondent’s scheme they fired him. 4. The preponderance of evidence proved that Respondent not only failed to complete the project for the amount he contracted in writing, he never intended to complete the project for that amount, but intended to perpetually add new items and new expenses for as long as Complainants would keep writing checks. Respondent clearly violated A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.9. 5. Respondent was performing as a contractor on this project while his license was suspended in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.18. 6. Respondent’s workmanship on this project was far below minimum workmanship standards in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108, and therefore in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154.A.3. 7. In addition to the above violations, and independent of them, Respondent wrongfully and fraudulently failed to provide Complainants a copy of the signed written contract until demand was made at the hearing, and lied to Complainants about necessary approved inspections which had not been obtained, forcing Complainants to expend even more money for the project. 8. The evidence proved that Respondent’s conduct in this project was so extremely egregious and in flagrant disregard of the Arizona contractor licensing laws as to warrant only one possible discipline, and that is unconditional revocation of the subject license pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154.A. and B. 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 156295 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 day, August 31, 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 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, AZ 85701 520-628-5488 Fax: 520-628-5575 www.azoah.com