ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2009A-51106603-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-09-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 14, 2011

APPEARANCES: Complainants appeared on their own behalf; no one appeared on behalf of Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Eric A. Bryant _____________________________________________________________________

Complainants Karen and Eric Wondergem seek a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“Fund”) for damages caused by defective workmanship of Respondent Goodman Fabrications, LLC. As noted above, Respondent did not appear. This tribunal entered the claim file received from the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) into the record. Complainants stated that they are not challenging the Fund’s recommendation for payout in the amount of $3,355.95. 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. Complainants did not testify at the hearing; they rely on the documentation already submitted and accepted by the ROC. 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 $3,355.95.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent was the holder of license C17R.234035-R, a license issued by the ROC. The license was revoked on December 15, 2010. 2. Respondent defectively fabricated and installed iron works in Complainants’ home. After Complainants 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. That Order became final; Respondent did not pay. 3. Complainants then made a claim to the Fund. Attached to the claim is documentation showing an amount that Complainants paid to have the work done that Respondent should have done. The Fund reviewed the claim and recommended a payout of $3,355.95. Respondent requested a hearing. 4. At the hearing, Complainants stated that they agree with the recommended amount of payout. 5. Respondent did not appear and, therefore, has waived any objection to the payout. 6. The record supports the recommended payout of $3,355.95. 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, Complainants bear the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claim meets the requirements for payout from the Fund.[3] Complainants have met that burden. 2. Complainants are injured persons 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 Complainants 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 Complainants through poor workmanship. 5. The evidence of record supports an award to Complainants in the amount of $3,355.95 all of which shall be chargeable against Complainants 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 Complainants in the amount of $3,355.95.

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, September 27, 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