ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2011A-5222-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2012-02-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 7, 2012 APPEARANCES: Robert and Sandra Kalischak appeared personally. Triple J Custom Interiors, Inc. did not appear. 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. Triple J Custom Interiors, Inc. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 205355, a Class K-48 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. In March 2010, Robert and Sandra Kalischak (“Complainants”) contracted with Respondent for tile work in a shower and two vanity tops in Complainants’ residence in Bullhead City, Arizona. 3. On September 13, 2011, Complainants filed a written Complaint with the Registrar alleging deficient workmanship by Respondent on the subject project. The Registrar designated the Complaint as Case No. 2011- 5222. 4. The Registrar’s then-assigned inspector, William Redman,[1] performed a jobsite inspection to view Respondent’s workmanship. As a result of that inspection, Inspector Redman issued a Corrective Work Order dated September 28, 2011, that addressed the Complaint items as follows: 1. The respondent shall remove the tile in the shower and the tile on the vanity top in the master bathroom and replace same in a good and [workmanlike] manner. The respondent shall hire properly licensed contractors to remove and replace the sink and shower door in the master bath. 2. The tile in the hall bathroom is not damaged, no corrective action required.

5. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2011-5222 charging Respondent with violating the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A) (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, (13), namely A.R.S. § 32-1124(B), and (23). 6. Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation and Complaint stating that Respondent was no longer in business. 7. The Registrar forwarded Case No. 2011-5222 to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 8. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing in Case No. 2011-5222 that advised the parties of the time, date, and location of the formal hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties at their addresses of record with the Registrar. 9. The commencement of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of Respondent’s authorized representative. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Respondent’s absence. 10. The newly assigned inspector, Cliff Corlett, performed a pre-hearing jobsite inspection on February 2, 2012. At the hearing, Inspector Corlett testified that he agreed with the Corrective Work Order and that Respondent failed to comply with the written directive by performing the required remedial work. 11. Respondent failed to properly list its contracting license number on a business card given to Complainants and Respondent’s invoice given to Complainants, as required by A.R.S. § 32-1124(B). 12. A review of the Registrar’s website on February 23, 2012, revealed that Respondent’s License No. 205355 is current and has had only one complaint against the license. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), Complainants have 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). 3. 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. The evidence of record established that Respondent’s workmanship did not meet workmanship standards, as set forth in the Registrar’s Corrective Work Order. 4. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (13), namely A.R.S. § 32-1124(B), as charged in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. Respondent failed to properly list its contracting license number on a business card and on an invoice given to Complainants. 5. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (23), as charged in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Corrective Work Order that required Respondent to remedy its deficient workmanship. RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent’s License No. 205355 shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 2011-5222. If Respondent provides proof to the Registrar that Respondent has fully complied with the Corrective Work Order issued in this matter and has become fully compliant with the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1124(B), on or before the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 2011-5222, and the Registrar approves such proof of compliance, then the above-provided license revocation shall not take place, but instead, Respondent’s License No. 205355 shall be placed on suspension for a period of five (5) days, followed immediately by a period of disciplinary probation for one hundred eighty (180) days. This alternative penalty shall commence, if at all, on the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 2011-5222. In addition to the above-provided penalties, if any, Respondent shall pay the sum of $500.00 to the Registrar by way of a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(D). The failure by Respondent to pay the entire amount of the aforesaid civil penalty on or before thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Order entered in Case No. 2011-5222 shall result in the automatic revocation of Respondent’s contracting license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32- 1101(A) (5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered. 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 23, 2012.

/s/ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Mr. Redman has since retired from the Registrar.

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

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