ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2008A-13984095-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2010-07-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 2, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Michael Thal. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for a Compliance Hearing to determine whether the Respondent has fully complied with the terms and conditions of the previously entered Order of the Registrar. Evidence and testimony were presented and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order on Compliance Hearing are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Order setting Compliance Hearing provides, in pertinent part, as follows: In view of the foregoing, and with good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that a Compliance Hearing be scheduled in the expedited course of docketing in the Phoenix area. At the Compliance Hearing the parties may present evidence and testimony as to whether or not Respondent has full complied with the terms set forth in the Registrar’s March 6th Order, absent unreasonable interference or denial of access by the Complainant. If it is determined that Respondent has failed to fully comply with the terms of the March 6th Order, the Versatile & Stone, LLC’s, Class C-48 License No. 182644 shall be subject to the immediate imposition of discipline. 2. There was no dispute that the Respondent paid the Complainant $3,126.00 on April 13, 2010. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the Registrar’s Order in a timely manner. 3. The Registrar’s March 6th Order provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Registrar adopts the Administrative law Judge’s attached Recommended Order with the following modifications: On page 4, lines 12 ½ -13 ½, “for five (5) days…175 days disciplinary probation” shall be replaced with “until Respondent provides written proof to the Registrar that is has paid a properly licensed contractor of Complainant’s choice to comply with the Agency’s written directive.” 4. The Administrative Law Judge Decision, as adopted by the Registrar, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 3. The Inspector convened a pre-hearing jobsite inspection, shortly before the scheduled hearing date, in order to determine whether Respondent had complied with the CWO. The Inspector’s findings at the pre-hearing inspection included the following: a. Respondent had attempted to comply with the CWO and some of the items had, in fact, been corrected. b. There is a hairline crack in the right corner of the shower. c. There is extensive grout cracking on the “pony” wall between the bathtub and shower. In addition, tiles are separating from the wall in this area. d. Due to the water leakage caused by the failure of Respondent’s work, there are still water stains on drywall, baseboards, and carpet. e. Another hairline crack remains in the bathtub, where it abuts the shower…8. By way of mitigation, it must be noted that Respondent was not given any notice from Complainant regarding the fact that aspects of the corrective work performed, subsequent to issuance of the CWO, had failed. Thus, Respondent had no further opportunity to correct the remaining deficiencies. 5. After the issuance of the Registrar’s March 6th Order the Complainant contracted with an alternative licensed contractor of his choice which performed the corrective work on the shower at a cost of $1,918.80. Additionally, the Complainant paid a contractor to perform work on the glass door for the shower at a cost of $1,208.03. 6. The Respondent disputed the necessity of the shower door work and the parties exchanged a series of emails. 7. Credible testimony evidence established that the Respondent mailed the Complainant a cashier’s check for the sum of $2,000.00. 8. There was no dispute that the Complainant did not receive the check as the check was returned to the sender. 9. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent mailed the check to the Complainant’s address in Nevada and that the envelope with the check was then forwarded to the Complainant’s address in Puerto Rico where the post office evidently failed to deliver the check to the Complainant. 10. The Respondent is not found to be responsible for the errors or omissions of the post office in Puerto Rico. 11. Credible testimony and evidence established that despite the Respondent’s disagreement regarding the $1,208.03 for the shower door the Respondent paid the Complainant $3,126.00 on April 13, 2010. 12. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent has fully complied with the terms of the Registrar’s March 6th Order.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Credible testimony and evidence supported findings that establish that the Respondent has fully complied with the terms of the March 6th Order of the Registrar.

RECOMMENDed order on compliance hearing

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that that this matter be closed.

In the event of certification of this Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of the certification. Done this day, July 2, 2010. /s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

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