ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2011A-4274-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2012-02-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 23, 2012

APPEARANCES: Complainant appeared on his own behalf, accompanied by his adult daughter Maria Carreto; Respondent did not appear.

WITNESSES: Febronio Lopez Maria Carreto

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Eric A. Bryant _____________________________________________________________________

Complainant brings this action against Respondent alleging that Respondent took money for work but then abandoned the job. As noted above, Respondent did not appear at the hearing; therefore, Complainant’s evidence is uncontested. This tribunal entered the complaint file received from the Registrar of Contractors into the record. Complainant and his daughter testified. Based upon the entire record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order finding abandonment and recommending revocation. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent is the holder of license B.148753-R, a general residential contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”). The license authorizes Respondent to operate as a general contractor for residential projects. Terryl Gibson is the sole proprietor of Respondent. 2. The evidence shows that after a storm damaged Complainant’s roof, Complainant paid $7,300.00 to Respondent to fix the roof. This is supported by Complainant’s testimony and a receipt in the record showing that on April 1, 2011, “Jack Perry” received that amount in cash from Complainant. The receipt bears the printed name of Respondent along with Respondent’s ROC license numbers, both residential and commercial. It provides and address, telephone number and fax number for Respondent. In addition, it lists a website “www.globalcontractors.com.” Complainant testified that he had a check from his insurance company (for coverage of the damage) and that Jack Perry and another person, whose name Maria Carreto testified was Eric Ross, went to the bank with him. At the bank, he cashed the insurance check and gave $7,300.00 in cash to Jack Perry. The receipt given to Complainant in exchange bears the signature of Jack Perry on behalf of Respondent. 3. Complainant testified that someone from Respondent’s business was supposed to bring shingle color samples to his home the next day but that they never showed up. He did not hear from them further and filed the ROC complaint to get his money back. 4. Respondent did not appear at the hearing to dispute Complainant’s evidence. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing is generally upon a complainant.[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 Respondent has violated the statutes cited in the Citation and Complaint.[3] Complainant has met that burden. 2. The allegations in the Citation and Complaint are that Respondent has violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(1) for abandonment of a project. As found above, the evidence shows that Respondent violated the statute. 4. A check of the ROC website shows that Respondent’s license has been suspended for failure to renew since October 1, 2011. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(C), the suspension of a license does not deprive the ROC or this tribunal of jurisdiction and does not render the Registrar powerless to discipline the license. 5. This tribunal finds the action of accompanying Complainant to the bank to get cash to be unprofessional. Then, Respondent took the money and abandoned Complainant. Finally, Respondent failed to show for the hearing. Given these actions, and the current suspension of the license, revocation of the license is warranted. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that license B.148753-R, held by Terryl Curtis Gibson dba Gibson and Gibson Development, be revoked.

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, February 10, 2012.

/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). [2] Smith v. Arizona Dept. of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430, 706 P.2d 756 (App. 1985). [3] Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 437, 930 P.2d 508, 514 (Ct. App. 1996).

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

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