ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-308476265-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-10-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 6, 2011 APPEARANCES: Gerd K. Wreschner appeared personally. Loving Management, L.L.C., doing business as Handyman Matters East Valley, was represented by its authorized representative, Chris Long. 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: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Loving Management, L.L.C., doing business as Handyman Matters East Valley (“Respondent”), is the holder of License No. 221354, a Class KB- contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. On January 27, 2010, Gerd K. Wreschner (“Complainant”) entered into a written contract with Respondent for the installation of a skylight supplied by Complainant at Complainant’s residence located at 1803 N. Bullmoose Drive, Chandler, Arizona. 3. Complainant paid Respondent the sum of $1,457.55 for the installation of the skylight. 4. On October 5, 2010, Complainant filed a written Complaint with the Registrar alleging deficient workmanship by Respondent in the installation of the skylight. The Complaint alleged that the skylight leaked during the first rainstorm after the installation. The Registrar designated the Complaint as Case No. 2010-[number redacted]. 5. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2010- [number redacted] charging Respondent with violating the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (3), specifically A.A.C. R4-9-108. 6. The Registrar forwarded Case No. 2010-[number redacted] to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 7. Respondent was a franchisee. Respondent went out of business on May 7, 2010. Respondent’s business telephone number was then transferred to a new franchisee, Handyman Matters Scottsdale. 8. When Complainant’s skylight leaked, Complainant called Respondent’s business telephone number and reached Handyman Matters Scottsdale, who stated that they did not know how to contact Respondent. Complainant had no other means of contacting Respondent. 9. Handyman Matters Scottsdale performed some courtesy repairs to the skylight for Complainant, but it was not obligated to perform warranty work for Respondent. Those repairs did not solve the leaking. 10. In September of 2010, Complainant hired Scott Roofing to repair the skylight. Complainant paid Scott Roofing the sum of $513.78 to repair the skylight. Scott Roofing properly repaired the skylight. 11. A review of the Registrar’s official electronic licensing records reveals that Respondent’s License No. 221354 was voluntarily canceled by Respondent on May 19, 2010. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(C), the voluntary cancellation of Respondent’s license does not deprive the Registrar of the authority to impose discipline against the license for proven violations in this matter. 3. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), Complainant has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 4. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, as charged in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. Respondent’s installation of Complainant’s skylight did not meet workmanship standards. Respondent’s deficient workmanship was corrected by Scott Roofing at an additional expense to Complainant. 5. Complainant has established an entitlement to restitution in the amount of $513.78 paid to Scott Roofing to correct Respondent’s deficient workmanship, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1156.01 RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent’s License No. 221354 shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 2010-[number redacted]. If Respondent provides written proof to the Registrar that Respondent has paid restitution to Complainant in the amount of $513.78, on or before the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 2010-[number redacted], and the Registrar approves such proof of payment, then the above-provided license revocation shall not take place, but instead Case No. 2010-[number redacted] shall be closed. 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, October 25, 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