ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2009A-48109774-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-06-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 23, 2011

APPEARANCES: Complainant appeared on his own behalf, accompanied by his wife; no one appeared on behalf of Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Eric A. Bryant _____________________________________________________________________

Complainant Charles Lind seeks a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“Fund”) for damages caused by defective workmanship of Respondent LJD Remodeling, LLC dba WD West Remodeling Group. As noted above, Respondent did not appear. This tribunal entered the claim file received from the Registrar of Contractors into the record. Complainant stated that he is not challenging the Fund’s recommendation for payout in the amount of $3,802.00. The claim file shows that Respondent requested the hearing for this matter in order to challenge the amount of the payout. Because Respondent did not appear and put forth evidence, the Fund’s recommended payout is uncontested. Complainant testified briefly at the hearing. Based upon the entire record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Decision for payout in the amount of $3,802.00.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent was the holder of license B.200537-R, a general residential contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”). The license authorized Respondent to operate as a general contractor for residential projects. The license was revoked on January 25, 2010. 2. Respondent defectively installed flooring in Complainant’s home. After Complainant filed a complaint with the ROC against Respondent and a hearing was held in December 2009, the ROC issued an Order finding Respondent in violation of the licensing statutes and ordering payment of restitution in the amount of $3,802.00. That Order became final; Respondent did not pay. 3. Complainant then made a claim to the Fund. The Fund reviewed the claim and recommended a payout of $3,802.00. Respondent requested a hearing. 4. At the hearing, Complainant testified that he agrees with the recommended amount of payout. He briefly described the underlying complaint and the basis for his claim. 5. Respondent did not appear and, therefore, has waived any objection to the payout. 6. The record supports the recommended payout of $3,802.00. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing is generally upon the person who brings the action.[1] Further, the standard of proof at hearing is by preponderance of the evidence.[2] Therefore, Complainant bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claim meets the requirements for payout from the Fund.[3] Complainant has met that burden. 2. Complainant is an injured person within the definition in A.R.S. § 32-1131(3). 3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Registrar of Contractors is empowered to determine and award an appropriate payment to Complainant from the Fund pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1132 and 32-1154(F). There is a cap of $30,000 for recovery from the Fund.[4] 4. Respondent caused the injuries to Complainant by poor workmanship. 5. The evidence of record supports an award to Complainant in the amount of $3,802.00 all of which shall be chargeable against Complainant and any other persons on the license as set forth in A.R.S. § 32-1139(B). RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar of Contractors make payment from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund to Complainant in the amount of $3,802.00.

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 40 days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, June 24, 2011.

/s/ Eric A. Bryant Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Utah Construction Company v. Berg et al, 68 Ariz. 285, 205 P.2d 367 (1949); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.), OAH Rule R2-19-119(B). [2] Smith v. Arizona Dept. of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430, 706 P.2d 756 (App. 1985); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). [3] Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 437, 930 P.2d 508, 514 (Ct. App. 1996). [4] A.R.S. § 32-1132(A).

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

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