ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

12F-L1212006-BFS · Department of Fire Building and Life Safety · 2012-12-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 19, 2012 APPEARANCES: Petitioner Brian Mattson appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Cypress Estates Mobile Home Park was represented by Mike Parham, Esq., Williams, Zinman & Parham P.C. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner Brian Mattson is a resident of Respondent Cypress Estates Mobile Home Park. Petitioner filed the Petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on May 23, 2012, alleging that Respondent’s failure to maintain the premises caused Petitioner to experience erosion of the soil under the Arizona room and rusting of the corrugated metal subskirt of his manufactured home, causing damage to the home. The Petition alleged that Respondent was responsible for the damage to the home because Respondent failed to meet its statutory duties as a mobile home park landlord. A hearing was set with the Office of Administrative Hearings to consider the issues brought forth by the Petition. At hearing, Petitioner offered evidence to establish that water had caused significant erosion on the east side of his home. The east side of the home consisted of an Arizona room built on top of what was once a concrete patio. Petitioner established the erosion had reached the corrugated metal subskirt. As a result, water had rusted the corrugated metal subskirt in numerous places. Earl Barton, a resident of Respondent, testified the drainage system in the mobile home park was not sufficient. Mr. Barton stated his belief that, as the roads were repaved, the additional asphalt altered the original drainage system, resulting in standing water in locations throughout the facility. Mr. Barton speculated that this shortcoming of the drainage system contributed to the erosion at Petitioner’s home. Respondent offered evidence at hearing that established the damage to Petitioner’s home was most likely caused by water that would have ran over the concrete patio but was restricted with the addition of the Arizona room. Respondent established that the grading of the lot had not been altered to take into account the addition of the Arizona room. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning violations of the Arizona mobile home parks residential landlord and tenant act. A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(A). A.R.S. § 33-1434 requires that the mobile home park landlord “[m]ake all repairs and do whatever necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition” and “[k]eep all common areas of the premises in a clean and safe condition.” A.R.S. § 33-1451 requires that the mobile home park tenant “shall exercise diligence to maintain that part of the premises which he has rented in as good condition as when he took possession” and “[k]eep that part of the premises that he occupies and uses as clean and safe as the condition of the premises permits.” Read together, the two laws make it clear that the landlord is to maintain the common areas and that the tenant is responsible for the maintenance of the tenant’s space. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing is generally upon the appellant. Utah Construction Company v. Berg et al., 68 Ariz. 285, 205 P.2d 367 (1949). Further, the standard of proof at hearing is a “preponderance of the evidence.” Smith v. Arizona Dept. of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430, 706 P.2d 756 (App. 1985). A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." Black's Law Dictionary 1182 (6th ed. 1990). In this case, Petitioner did not establish that the grading and drainage in the mobile home park was not reasonably adequate. The greater weight of the evidence established that the damage to the Petitioner’s home was most likely caused by the improper maintenance of the Petitioner’s home and space. Respondent established that it met its duty to direct water past the homes. Consequently, when the improper grading, drainage, and maintenance of the home and the space in this case caused the home to be damaged, Respondent bore no responsibility. The evidence did not establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1434 or any other provision of the applicable law. ORDER In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that the Petition 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 is five days after the date of the certification by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings. Done this day, December 10, 2012.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Gene Palma, Director Department of Fire Building and Life Safety -----------------------

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