ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2009A-1322782-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-10-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COMPLIANCE HEARING: September 20, 2011 APPEARANCES: Jose J. Mendoza appeared personally. J M Villas Construction, L.L.C. was represented by its attorney, Barry L. Olsen, Esq. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order on Compliance: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. J M Villas Construction, Inc. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 207789, a Class B contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. Jose J. Mendoza (“Complainant”) hired Respondent to construct a new residence located at 1156 North Villareal Ave., San Luis, Arizona. 3. On January 5, 2009, Complainant filed a Complaint with the Registrar alleging workmanship deficiencies by Respondent in the construction of Complainant’s residence. The Registrar designated the Complaint as Case No. Y09-0132. The Registrar later re-designated the Complaint as Case No. 2009-1322782. 4. In response to the filed Complaint, the Registrar’s assigned inspector, Daryl McCloskey, performed a jobsite inspection at Complainant’s residence to view the alleged workmanship deficiencies. As a result of that inspection, Inspector McCloskey issued a Corrective Work Order dated January 26, 2009, that required Respondent to timely perform remedial work as follows: The contractor is to correct by appropriate means the following items:

1) The cracks in the stucco above the rear door, rear window. 2) The cracks in the stucco south side window. 3) The cracks in the stucco by the north side window and in the middle of the wall. 4) The rear patio ceiling. 5) The excessive crazing of the rear patio concrete surface. 6) The light or missing texture on the hallway arch. 7) The front door [,] the gap under the door [,] and the door handle.

The following items require no action by the contractor at this time:

1) The side door in the garage. 2) The roof tiles. 3) The closed doors in the house – only covered for the first year.

5. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint charging Respondent with violating the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (7), (23), and (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108. 6. On January 19, 2010, an evidentiary hearing was conducted before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency. As a result of that hearing, an Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued that provided, among other things “that the Respondent’s Class B- License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives and accepts written proof that the Respondent has fully complied with the terms and conditions of the written Corrective Work Order issued in this matter.” 7. On February 9, 2010, the Registrar issued an Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge Decision, with a minor modification. However, the Registrar’s Order adopted fully the recommended order contained in the Administrative Law Judge Decision. 8. On or about March 18, 2010, counsel for Respondent submitted written correspondence to the Registrar requesting a compliance inspection to verify Respondent’s compliance with the Registrar’s Order and Corrective Work Order. In June 2010, Complainant also requested a compliance inspection. 9. On August 5, 2011, the Registrar issued an Order Setting Compliance Hearing to determine whether Respondent complied with the Registrar’s prior Order. 10. At the compliance hearing, there was credible evidence presented that Respondent had complied with the Registrar’s Corrective Work Order except for correcting the “excessive crazing of the rear patio concrete surface.” Despite Respondent’s repair to that item, there remained excessive product on the concrete surface that needs to be removed. Respondent is responsible for removing the excess product from the concrete surface. The evidence established that all other items meet workmanship standards, albeit not Complainant’s standards. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Order dated February 9, 2010, by not completing the remedial work required by the Registrar’s Corrective Work Order in a workmanlike manner. Respondent failed to correct “[t]he excessive crazing of the rear patio concrete surface” because it left excessive product on the surface that needs to be removed. Therefore, Respondent’s License No. 207789 should be suspended until such work is completed in a workmanlike manner pursuant to the terms of the Registrar’s Order dated February 9, 2010. RECOMMENDED ORDER ON COMPLIANCE Pursuant to the terms of the Registrar’s Order dated February 9, 2010, Respondent’s License No. 207789 shall be immediately suspended until the Registrar receives written proof, and the Registrar accepts such proof, that Respondent has properly repaired Complainant’s rear patio concrete surface by removing the excessive product in a workmanlike manner. 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 five (5) days from the date of that certification. Done this day, October 11, 2011.

/s/ Brian Brendan Tully 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