ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2011A-5915-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2012-12-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 27, 2012, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Complainant Kenneth A. Lyster was represented by Richard B. Murphy, Esq., Murphy Karber, PLC; Respondent Restoration Pointe LLC was represented by Brent H. Bryson, Esq., Bryson Law Firm, PLC. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure 1. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) issued License No. KB-1.256841-D to Restoration Pointe LLC (“Respondent”). Pointe Companies Inc. is among the members listed on Respondent’s License. 2. On or about October 12, 2011, Kenneth A. Lyster (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar that alleged numerous deficiencies in Respondent’s restoration and repair of Complainant’s vacation house at 3035 Government Prairie in Parks, Arizona. According to the Complaint, the parties’ contract was oral and written. 3. On or about November 22, 2011, the Registrar’s assigned inspector, William A. Redman, performed a jobsite inspection. According to his notes of the jobsite inspection, Inspector Redman did not issue a Corrective Work Order (“CWO”) to Respondent for the following reasons: This is an insurance repair as the home was flooded and had damage in the entire house. The job is not finished and [Respondent] refuses to return as [Complainant] has received payments from the insurance company but will not pay the contractor for work that was approved by the insurance company.

[Complainant] wants the contractor to do items not on the claim or over and above what’s on the claim.

The monies owed [to Respondent] are in the 10s of thousands.

When I left the job the parties were going to get together and work out a compromise on how to precede so no CWO will be issued at this time.

4. On or about April 20, 2012, Complainant requested that the Complaint be reopened. Because Inspector Redman had left state service, the matter was reassigned to the Registrar’s inspector, Rick J. Emry. Inspector Emry performed a jobsite inspection on May 10, 2012. 5. On May 24, 2012, Inspector Emry issued a CWO that required Respondent to correct 72 of the deficiencies that Complainant alleged in the Complaint within 15 calendar days, in relevant part as follows: The following Corrective Work Order is based upon the itemized list of complaints as provided by the complainant.

Entry: 1. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. All smooth finished walls in the house that were newly painted had evidence of debris in the paint by both sight and touch. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

2. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. I was unable to verify proper priming being that ceilings were painted however; all smooth finish ceilings had evidence of debris in the paint by both sight and touch. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

3. Door not sanded, prepped and finished. Door was not refinished Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

4. Tile not sealed. The floor tile grout was chalky to the touch. No plan, specifications, or properly executed change order provided at time of inspection. No action required by the Respondent

5. Bi-fold doors not installed. No bi-fold doors were installed in the entryway closet. R states this was not in the scope of there contract. No plan, specifications, or properly executed change order provided at time of inspection. No action required by the Respondent

Kitchen: 6. Plumbing not secured under sink. The hot and cold water lines were of Pex tubing and freely moved within the drilled holes. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

7. Kitchen sink not operational; faucet not installed. The faucet for the sink was lying in the sink basin. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

8. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. See #1

9. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. See #2

10. Doors not stained/painted (entry, kitchen, front bathroom and utility room). There was no evidence of an attempt to refinish the doors in question Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

11. Can light in kitchen not working. No deficiency demonstrated or observed at time of inspection No action required by the Respondent

12. Electrical switch not correct — ground wire cut, see building inspector report. The low voltage switch had its green ground wire cut, not grounded in plastic box Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

13. Cover plates in kitchen and through out. There were no cover plates in place on any of the switches or outlets within the kitchen area. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

14. Kitchen drawer-face missing. The drawer box was present with no face. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

15. Stove gas lines not sealed. There is no fire/draft stop where gas line penetrates framing. Inspector has no first hand knowledge. No action required by the Respondent

16. Natural gas stove installed; property is propane. Island is crooked. Corrected prior to job site inspection No action required by the Respondent

17. Sub-floor missing under kitchen cabinets (cabinets sit lower because of this). Inspector has no first hand knowledge and was unable to verify. No action required by the Respondent

18. Dent in drawer under cook top. I observed a 1-1/2” long by 1/8” to 3/16” horizontal dent to the outer top right edge of the drawer face. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

19. Crack in cabinet under cook top. The upper rail of the cook top cabinet face frame had a crack on the right end where it meets the vertical stile. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

Living Area: 20. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. See #1

21. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. See #2

22. Ardex primer not used per manufacturer specifications on hardwood floor. Inspector has no first hand knowledge I was unable to verify. No action required by the Respondent

23. Gap at beam visible and not calked or “finished”. I observed a ½” gap between the west end of the beam and the adjacent wall. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

24. Sheetrock not replaced where all the siding was, only holes and seams were repaired and are visible. The seam and hole patches were noticeable. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

25. Gap in wall around wood burning stove. I noticed a 2” x1/2” gap in the wall where the wood stove brick hearth meets the south wall. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

26. Trim around wood burning stove. There were 1x3 oak base boards that had not been secured to the brick hearth Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

27. Blinds not installed (damaged). No blinds were present or installed. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

Den: 28. Door not stained/painted. See #10

29. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. See #1

30. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. See #2

31. Wall under fireplace not sealed or insulated properly. Corrected prior to job site inspection No action required by the Respondent

32. Blinds not installed. See #27

33. Trim around step not complete. The base board trim terminated at the edge of the step and did not wrap around similar to other locations in the house. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

34. Chicken wire not installed under den area. There was no wire installed. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

Guest Bath: 35. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. See#1

36. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. See#2

37. Toilet leaking (without super flush economy tank) No deficiency demonstrated or observed at time of inspection No action required by the Respondent

38. Shower door is not correct. The 5’ tall by-pass glass shower doors that were installed were actually tub enclosure doors and are of insufficient height as installed for the existing shower pan. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

39. Tile not sealed. See #4

40. Heater knob missing. The electrical in-wall radiant heater’s knob is missing. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

41. No thin set or mud was used to set the tub. Master Bath: I was unable to verify as tub was installed in place. No action required by the Respondent

42. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. See #1

43. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. See #2 Note ceiling above tub was roughly finished and not painted.

44. Master tub not installed properly. The ceramic tile enclosure for the tub surround runs behind the tub rim and is not sealed. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

45. Tile not sealed. See #4

46. No thin set or mud was used to set the tub. See #41

47. Instant-hot system not installed. Complainant withdrew this item at job site inspection. No action required by the Respondent

48. Solar tube inoperable. The built-in lighting for the solar tube was inoperable. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

48A. Tub faucet is too short to properly fill tub without causing water to land on tub rim[.] (Added at jobsite) The existing faucet does not clear the tub rim. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

Hall Bath: 49. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. I was unable to verify due to the sprayed texture of the wall. No action required by the Respondent

50. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. I was unable to verify due to the sprayed texture of the ceiling. No action required by the Respondent

51. No thin set or mud was used to set the tub. No deficiency demonstrated or observed at time of inspection No action required by the Respondent

52. Tile not sealed. See #4

53. Angle stop not in wall as requested/original installation. The water for the toilet was run vertical up through floor. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

53A. There is no draft stop where stack vent penetrates back of vanity. (Added at JSI) No draft stops at penetrations. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

Bedroom 1 (North East bedroom, #3 on Insurance Claim) 54. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. I was unable to verify due to the sprayed texture of the wall. No action required by the Respondent

55. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. I was unable to verify due to the sprayed texture of the ceiling. No action required by the Respondent

56. Door knob missing from bedroom door. No door knob present Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

Bedroom: 2 57. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. See #1 Note: entire north drywall replaced due to plumbing repair in wall

58. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. See #2

Bedroom 3 59. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. I was unable to verify due to the sprayed texture of the wall. No action required by the Respondent

60. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. I was unable to verify due to the sprayed texture of the ceiling. No action required by the Respondent

Master bedroom 61. Walls were not washed throughout entire home and have a sand paper finish; visible debris in drywall and paint. I was unable to verify due to the sprayed texture of the wall. No action required by the Respondent

62. Ceiling not cleaned, prepped, primed or painted properly. I was unable to verify due to the sprayed texture of the ceiling. No action required by the Respondent

Utility Room 63. Plumbing under the home is not insulated in all required areas. I was unable to verify as majority of crawlspace was too confining to allow inspection. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

64. Roof leaking where plumber moved water heater vent. The water heater vent runs vertical up through the valley above.

Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

65. Plumbing incorrect, incomplete, not routed properly for heating system (?). Complainant removed this item at time of job site inspection. No action required by the Respondent

66. HVAC plumbing not routed correctly. Plumbing is temporarily looped pending replacement of hot water heater. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

67. VAC system can not be connected. See #66

68. HVAC vent not installed properly. See #66

69. Filtration system not hooked up. Water filtration system is simply hung on wall and not connected. No plan, specifications, or properly executed change order provided at time of inspection. No action required by the Respondent

70. Pump not installed per manufacturer specifications. The pump was installed directly atop the floor with approximately 3” of clearance to the south and 10” clearance to the west. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

71. Water heater installation connections not completed. Water heater was set aside after County inspection determined that vent was inappropriately run up through the valley in the roof above. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

72. Hole in exterior wall where vent removed and not covered. A temporary plywood patch was on the exterior of house where previously existing hot water gas venting had exited the wall and was removed. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

Hall Utility closet 73. Plumbing in hall utility closet not completed. See #66

74. Radiant heat is not set up properly or connected. See #66

75. Blocking not completed. There was light visible from below where the replaced subfloor was to meet the north wall of the closet. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

Workmanship: 76. Screw pattern not to code on dry wall. Inspector has no first hand knowledge, unverified, wall is covered texture and paint. No action required by the Respondent

77. Cistern still has debris in it. The cistern had small pieces of white debris (possibly drywall or concrete) at the bottom of the tank. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

78. Debris not cleaned up outside. Several areas of drywall, plywood debris, pallets, cardboard tubing, and OSB scraps were noted to the east of the residence. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

79. Lighting damaged — sconces broken. Inspector has no first hand knowledge the scones in question were missing. No action required by the Respondent

80. No proof that Benefect anti-microbial was sprayed and tested as suggested from Pointe referred company. Inspector has no first hand knowledge, I was unable to verify. No action required by the Respondent

81. Unauthorized attempt to raise the home created a crack and unsettling on the southeast exterior wall of the house. There is was a vertical crack in the CMU wall adjacent to the electrical service panel. I was unable to determine cause at time of inspection. No action required by the Respondent

82. Fire alarms continually beeping. (all rooms) The smoke alarm that was beeping was determined to be in the living area and may be a battery issue, unable to determine cause at time of inspection. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

83. Holes going through sub-floor to the ground in multiple areas where unauthorized vents are used (intermittent valves). Including all bathrooms and kitchen. See items #6, #15, #17, #53, and #75. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

84. Perimeter insulation is not complete. From the crawlspace access I observed some foam insulation present on the east wall adjacent to the access, but was unable to confirm the remainder of the stem wall due to the confined space between the floor joist and earth below. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

85. Electrical in sub-floor not brought up to code as outlined in scope/building dept report. I did observe some loose wiring adjacent to the crawlspace access, but was unable to verify the remainder of the crawl due to confined space between floor joist and earth. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

Webb Alliance ROC# 269605 86. Skylight not installed. No skylight was installed in newly remodeled fireplace chase. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

87. Glue lam specifications not provided to building department. This is not a workmanship issue; inspector has no first hand knowledge. No action required by the Respondent

88. Exterior gable siding not installed on all 4 sides per contract. The four gables in question were left original and had not been remodeled. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

89. The house was not cleaned and ready for turn key move in. Toilets have been used and not flushed. There is no water supply to the house. Toilets are disgusting. There is no evidence of any attempt to complete a final punch list or cleaning of project for turn key move in. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufacturer's installation instructions.

Faxed additional complaints: 4/24 90. Baseboards in tiled rooms were installed prior to tile causing bottom edge of trim to below the surface of the tile. This installation can be typical unless otherwise specified. No plan, specifications, or properly executed change order provided at time of inspection. No action required by the Respondent

91. Windows are covered with paint overspray All windows had paint over spray present; additionally all stained oak wood window sills had a gritty finish. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means

92. Windows not installed or insulated properly you can see through into the attic This was determined to be a typo on part of the Complainant and was meant to address the recessed can light above the sink. The can trim was askew and adjusted to cover the gap. No action required by the Respondent

Coconino County Inspection Report 93. Water supply lines to secondary water heater must be reconnected. See items #73 & #74

94. All water lines in crawlspace installed below floor joist (not protected by floor insulation) must be insulated. See #63

95. Install water heater and properly vent through roof (overflow pan and seismic straps required) See #71

96. All penetrations in floor must be sealed properly See #83

97. Wall that was removed during repair was replaced by Glue Lam Beam, needs to be verified for proper structural support. See #87

98. Any insulation in floor that was disturbed or removed must be replaced. See #34

99. Install cleanout at kitchen drain stand pipe. See #65

100. Secure electrical wiring in crawlspace. See #85

101. Light switches must be installed in proper junction box and grounded. See #12

102. Finish installing smoke detectors. No deficiency demonstrated or observed at time of inspection with the exception of the beeping detector in the living area. See #82

6. On or about June 18, 2012, Complainant requested a hearing because Respondent had not corrected any of the items on the CWO. 7. On or about July 17, 2012, Inspector Emry sent a letter to Respondent stating that the Registrar had received information that Respondent may have violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) (to wit Rule A.A.C. R4-9-109) by operating under the name, Point Companies Inc., rather than the name on its license. 8. On or about August 15, 2012, the Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13), namely A.R.S. § 32-1124(B), A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(15), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23). 9. On or about August 27, 2012, the Registrar received the timely written answer to the Citation and Complaint filed by Respondent’s attorney that denied that it had violated any statute that warranted a license suspension and affirmatively alleged that Complainant had denied Respondent reasonable access to comply with the CWO. 10. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

11. A hearing was held on November 27, 2012. Inspector Emry testified telephonically. Complainant submitted six exhibits and testified on his own behalf. Respondent submitted one exhibit and presented the testimony of two witnesses: (1) Preston Ty Webb (“Mr. P. Webb”), a member in Respondent; and (2) Rustin Gale Webb (“Mr. R. Webb”), Preston Webb’s younger brother and Respondent’s foreman on the project. Hearing Evidence 12. At the hearing, Complainant withdrew the items that Inspector Emry’s CWO did not require Respondent to correct (CWO Item Nos. 4, 5, 11, 15, 16, 17, 22, 31, 37, 39, 41, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 69, 76, 79, 80, 81, 87, 90, 92, 97, and 99). 13. The vacation house was built in approximately 1978 and was remodeled in 1995, before Complainant purchased the house. The house has approximately 3,000 square feet. Parks is approximately miles west of Flagstaff, Arizona, and two miles north of Interstate 40. Although the house has electricity that is furnished by a public utility, it does not have access to sewer, natural gas, or water utility services. The house has a cistern to store potable water that must be hauled and a catch basin for rainwater. On New Year’s Eve 2010, a water line burst in the ceiling, causing substantial damage to the house. 14. Complainant is an insurance agent whose primary residence is in Glendale, Arizona. Complainant testified that he has never worked as an insurance adjuster. Although Complainant was not at the vacation house when the water line burst, a person who had rented the house for the holidays informed Complainant of the damage. Complainant testified that on January 4, 2011, an insurance adjuster was onsite to survey the damage and to begin restoration. 15. Complainant testified that Valley Wide Restoration[2] performed 75% to 80% of the initial damage mitigation at the vacation house. Complainant testified that after Valley Wide Restoration mistakenly was paid for the entire job, it stopped working and East Valley Restoration[3] took over mitigation. Complainant testified that Brad Bell of East Valley Restoration referred him to Respondent because it is a subsidiary of East Valley Restoration and does business in northern Arizona.[4] 16. On or about June 23, 2011, Respondent’s representative and Complainant signed a Work Order Authorization for Respondent to perform structural repairs.[5] The Work Order Authorization was a one-page form document that did not include a scope of work or contract amount, although it provided that payment was due upon completion of work and receipt of invoice. The Work Order Authorization included the name, “Pointe 24/7 Fire Flood Restoration,” rather than the name on Respondent’s License. 17. The parties do not have a written contract that sets forth the scope of work for repairs and the contract amount. Inspector Emry testified that the scope of work and prices would have been set forth on a document generated by Xactimate, which is a software program that insurance adjusters use to generate estimates for repairs. 18. Neither party submitted the Xactimate estimate for the repairs that Complainant’s insurer authorized Respondent to perform. Respondent attached to its written answer to the Citation and Complaint a copy of Complainant’s homeowner’s insurer’s estimate in the total amount of $172,245.48 to repair the water damage to the vacation house. 19. The Registrar’s electronic record includes correspondence and numerous invoices to Complainant regarding his failure to pay for certain work that Respondent performed on the restoration of the vacation house in Parks. Respondent’s Invoice #657 dated August 24, 2011, in the amount of $44,281.08 was for work items completed, including insulation, subfloor, drywall, plumbing rough-in, electrical upgrade (code), cabinets ordered and paid, painting, and cistern cleaning. 20. The invoices and letterhead show the names, “Pointe Companies, Inc.”[6] or “Pointe 24/7 Fire Flood Restoration,”[7] rather than the name on Respondent’s License No. KB-1.256841-D, Restoration Pointe LLC. 21. The invoices did not show Respondent’s License number preceded by the acronym “ROC.” 22. Complainant testified that he visited the vacation house at least every other week during the project and that he stayed in a motel to monitor Respondent’s work. 23. Mr. P. Webb testified that Complainant and his former girlfriend, Deborah Voge, requested that Respondent perform work that the insurance company had not approved, including redoing the floor, re- spraying areas for mold, and redoing a bathroom. Mr. P. Webb testified that Complainant wanted to be an expert, but that if Respondent followed Complainant’s instructions, sometimes things did not turn out. 24. Mr. P. Webb testified that from the early stages of the project, Respondent had difficulty securing payment from Complainant. Mr. P. Webb testified that in September 2011, the bank inspector reported that the project was 95% complete and ordered that monies be released to Respondent. 25. On or about September 21, 2011, Complainant paid Respondent $44,281.08.[8] Respondent’s employees last worked on the restoration project on Complainant’s vacation house in late September 2011. 26. After Respondent left the project, Complainant requested and paid for an inspection from Coconino County Community Development (“the County”). The County performed an inspection and on or about November 14, 2011, issued a report identifying 17 code violations and ordering that all work be stopped until necessary permits were obtained.[9] 27. Complainant testified after Inspector Redman’s inspection on November 22, 2011, Complainant released another $29,514.91 to Respondent.[10] Complainant testified that Respondent then obtained a permit for the project and performed some work. 28. On or about April 17, 2012, the County issued an inspection report that identified ten remaining code violations.[11] 29. Mr. P. Webb testified that by October 2011, the relationship between the parties had broken down and that Respondent welcomed the Registrar’s involvement because Mr. P. Webb hoped that it would bring the project to a close. Mr. P. Webb testified that after the parties were unable to resolve their differences about the scope of work and payment, Respondent again stopped working on the project. 30. Mr. P. Webb testified that Complainant hired other contractors to perform work on the project. 31. Mr. P. Webb asserted that because Respondent changed its address, it did not immediately receive the May 24, 2012 CWO. 32. Complainant testified that on about May 31, 2012, approximately a week after Inspector Emry had issued the CWO, Mr. P. Webb informed him that it was making arrangements for its subcontractors to perform the work required by the CWO in the next week. 33. Mr. P. Webb testified that the corrective work required by the CWO would have taken about two days. 34. Complainant testified that Inspector Emry told him that he was not obligated to allow Respondent to attempt to perform repairs beyond the 15 days set forth in the CWO. Complainant testified that because the 15 days would expire a week after May 31, 2012, he told Mr. P. Webb that he would not allow Respondent to attempt repairs and filed a request for hearing. 35. The CWO stated that “[f]rom a scheduling point of view and in order that the contractor may take corrective measures in an orderly and prompt manner, cooperation between the contractor and complainant is necessary.” Inspector Emry testified that his usual recommendation to contractors is to communicate with the homeowner and to try to get the work done. 36. Complainant testified that if the Registrar required Respondent to finish repairs, he would reluctantly allow Respondent access to the jobsite. Complainant acknowledged that he would rather not have Respondent finish the work. 37. Inspector Emry testified that he performed a prehearing jobsite inspection and that it appeared that nothing had been done to comply with the CWO. 38. Complainant acknowledged that his attorney had informed him that Respondent had filed suit against him in Coconino County Superior Court for monies allegedly owed for the project, although he had not yet been served with the lawsuit. 39. Mr. P. Webb testified that the only reason Respondent filed the lawsuit was to protect Respondent’s liens rights. Debris in Paint on Walls and Ceilings (CWO Items Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 20, 21, 29, 30, 35, 36, 42, 43, 57, and 58) 40. Complainant testified that after the water damage, Valley Wide Restoration removed all the existing subfloors and exposed the dirt beneath the crawlspace. Complainant testified that Valley Wide Restoration used large fans to dry out the joists, producing dust that ended up on the walls, ceilings, and every surface of the vacation house. 41. Complainant testified that after Respondent replaced the subfloors, it did not wash the walls and ceilings because the cistern was empty and there was no water on site. Complainant testified that although Respondent could have filled the cistern, there was no operable pump to get water to the faucets in the vacation house. 42. Mr. R. Webb testified that Respondent removed, replaced, and repainted approximately 2’ drywall above the floor due to water damage. Mr. R. Webb testified that the vacation house had numerous drywall finishes, sometimes in the same room. 43. Mr. R. Webb acknowledged that because the cistern had been drained, Respondent did not have water on site to wash the walls and ceilings. 44. Inspector Emry testified that the Registrar requires contractors to correct inadequate surfaces before performing work on them. Inspector Emry testified that if the surfaces of the walls and ceilings were not adequate for Respondent to paint the walls to achieve a finish that complied with the Registrar’s standards, Respondent should have sanded the walls before painting them. 45. Mr. R. Webb testified that he sanded the surfaces to remove the blemishes and used a shop vacuum to remove the dust before he painted the walls and ceilings. Mr. R. Webb testified that the existing finish of the paint above where the drywall was replaced had debris in it and that Respondent attempted to match the finish. 46. Inspector Emry noted that the entire north wall of bedroom 2 had been replaced due to a plumbing repair in the wall. Inspector Emry testified that the entire wall had visible debris in the finish. Unsecured Water Lines and Unfinished Plumbing (CWO Item Nos. 6, 7, 66, 67, 68, 73, 74, and 93) 47. Inspector Emry testified that the plumbing work described in the Xactimate estimate had not been completed. Inspector Emry testified that wall pipes need to be secured or mounted to walls with an escutcheon or flange. 48. Inspector Emry testified that the plumbing for the radiant heat exchanger was looped as a temporary repair and that Respondent was waiting for Complainant to replace the heat exchanger, which was not hooked up and leaking. 49. Complainant acknowledged that Respondent did not complete the radiant heat system because while Valley Wide Restoration was performing remediation, it caused a second flood that drained the cistern. Complainant acknowledged that when Respondent was working on the project, the radiant heat system was still leaking, but that Respondent was not responsible for the leak. Complainant testified that the issue of the radiant heat exchanger was moot because he had purchased a new heater. Shower Door in Hall Bath, Unsealed Tub Surround, and Tub Faucet in Master Bath (CWO Item Nos. 38, 44, and 48A) 50. Inspector Emry testified that the walk-in shower in the hall bath had a 3” to 4” curb and that the shower door was only about 5’ high or shoulder height. Inspector Emry testified that a short door was not standard for a walk-in shower. 51. Complainant testified that he sent Respondent a SKU number for the shower door that did not show a size but showed the brushed nickel finish that he desired. 52. Inspector Emry testified that if the owner had provided the shower door, he would not have expected Respondent to have installed it. Inspector Emry testified that, instead, he would have expected some talk back and forth between the parties, and that Respondent should have ascertained that the door was what Complainant wanted to be installed. 53. Inspector Emry testified that the tub in the master bathroom has a raised lip and is surrounded by a ceramic tile enclosure. Inspector Emry testified that because there was a gap between the lip and the ceramic tile enclosure, water splashed out of the tub will run behind it. 54. Inspector Emry testified that the master bathroom tub faucet was installed approximately 5” from the wall, perpendicular to the wall. Inspector Emry testified that the faucet is too short because water from the faucet would hit the edge of the tub. 55. Mr. R. Webb testified that he recommended that Complainant purchase another faucet for the tub, but nothing was done. 56. Mr. R. Webb testified that the tub in the master bathroom was not the tub that had been in the vacation house when the damage occurred. Mr. R. Webb testified that the tub that Respondent installed was not meant for a shower, but that Respondent had said that was what he was used to, and Respondent had tried to accommodate Complainant. Mr. R. Webb acknowledged that the gap between the wall and the tub should be sealed, but stated that Respondent was never given an opportunity to perform any repairs. 57. Mr. P. Webb testified that Respondent is willing to replace the water faucet to the master bathroom tub, but that Complainant is not willing to allow Respondent to remove the faucet or to purchase a longer faucet. 58. Complainant testified that he purchased the trim kit for the master bathroom. Complainant testified that Respondent had installed the bathtub incorrectly and that if Respondent had installed the tub correctly, it would have been 3” to the east and the faucet would have been long enough. Angle Stops in Hall Bath and Water Pump (CWO Item Nos. 53, 53A, and 70) 59. With respect to CWO Item Nos. 53 and 53A, Inspector Emry testified that the water line for the toilet in the hall bath ran vertically through the floor and that, originally, the water line ran horizontally along the wall. Inspector Emry testified that Respondent should have put the water line back as it existed before the damage and that he did not know why Respondent had changed the installation. Inspector Emry testified that the missing draft stop was required by code. 60. Inspector Emry testified that the manufacturer required 60” of clearance at the end of the water pump, and that Respondent had installed the pump to have only 10” of clearance. Inspector Emry acknowledged that the required clearance could be achieved by turning the water pump 180°. Cut Ground Wire and Electrical Work that Is Not to Code in Subfloor (CWO Item Nos. 12, 85, 100, and 101) 61. Inspector Emry testified that the cut ground wire in the kitchen was obvious. The April 17, 2012 Inspection Report that the County issued after Respondent obtained a permit required that light switches be installed in a proper junction box and be grounded. 62. Inspector Emry testified that he did not recall seeing any electrical wiring that was lying on the ground in the crawlspace, but that he observed loose wiring close to the crawlspace access door at his initial jobsite inspection. 63. The April 17, 2012 Inspection Report that the County issued after Respondent obtained a permit required that electrical wiring be secured in the crawlspace. Unsanded and Unprepped Doors, Missing Electrical Plates in Kitchen, and Missing Doorknob from Bedroom 1 (CWO Item Nos. 3, 10, 13, 28 and 56)

64. The insurance estimate that Respondent attached to its written answer included numerous line items for replacement of interior doors, including finishing. 65. Inspector Emry testified that all the electrical plates were missing from the receptacles above the counter in the kitchen. 66. Inspector Emry testified that he does not remember whether Respondent worked on the door that is missing a knob or whether the door was painted or stained. The insurance estimate included several line items for detaching and resetting interior door knobs. 67. Mr. R. Webb testified that because all the doors in the vacation house were to be replaced, he would not finish a door that would later be removed from the house. Missing Drawer Face, Dented Drawer, and Cracked Cabinet in Kitchen (CWO Item Nos. 14, 18, and 19) 68. Inspector Emry testified that he understands that Respondent installed the cabinets. Inspector Emry testified that the dent in the drawer was approximately 1-½” long and deep enough that he did not think the dent could be repaired. Inspector Emry testified that the missing drawer face and the cracked cabinet also would need to be replaced. 69. Mr. R. Webb testified that Complainant or Ms. Voge took the missing drawer face to attempt to find matching cabinets for the wall and that he left the drawer face out for them to take. 70. Complainant denied that he had requested or taken the drawer face. Gap at Beam, Missing Sheetrock, Skylight, and Exterior Gable Siding (CWO Item Nos. 23, 24, 86, and 88) 71. Complainant acknowledged that during the time that Respondent was performing restoration work, he personally removed a fireplace and made agreements to have certain upgrades done, including the removal of a load-bearing wall between the living room and the den of the vacation house, installation of a gluelam beam to support the load, and installation of new siding on four exterior walls.[12] 72. Complainant submitted into evidence an document dated September 9, 2011, that provided in relevant part as follows: I have received the following for additional repairs for the 3035 Government Prairie property from Ken Lyster and Deborah Voge:

$800 paid in full for glue lam and removal of wall in den area as well as sky light. The sky light repair includes: framing, insulation and the placement of dome which is not yet complete.

$500 paid for materials for gable ends on 4 sides of house. Remaining $300 for labor will be paid upon completion of job. This is for siding replacement only and not for the ends of the roof.[13]

The document was signed by Rustin Webb, Foreman, and Deborah Voge, Owner. The document did not mention Respondent’s or any other contractor’s name. 73. Complainant acknowledged that he prepared the document for the additional work. Complainant testified that although Ms. Voge does not own the house, she was in the truck when he delivered the document to Mr. R. Webb’s motel and that she jumped out of the truck to sign the document. Complainant testified that he understood that Mr. R. Webb signed the document on behalf of Respondent. Complainant testified that he paid Mr. R. Webb for the work in cash. 74. Inspector Emry testified that he understood that Mr. R. Webb had a contractor’s license and that Mr. R. Webb obtained a change order to install certain things that the Xactimate estimate did not require.[14] Inspector Emry testified that at the initial jobsite inspection, there was a discussion about whether Mr. R. Webb was authorized to execute change orders on behalf of Respondent. Inspector Emry testified that because Mr. R. Webb was on site supervising Respondent’s repairs, he was authorized to act on Respondent’s behalf. 75. Mr. R. Webb testified that because he was busy, Complainant hired one of Respondent’s workers, Rudel DuClay, to remove the wall and to install the gluelam beam, sheetrock, skylight, and siding on the gables. Mr. R. Webb testified that Mr. DuClay purchased the gluelam beam and that Mr. R. Webb acted as a middleman in the transaction and took Complainant’s cash payments to give to Mr. DuClay. Mr. R. Webb testified that he tried to get Mr. DuClay and Complainant to deal directly with each other, but that Mr. DuClay did not want to deal with Complainant. Mr. R. Webb testified that Mr. DuClay removed the wall and installed the beam. Mr. R. Webb testified that he never said or did anything to lead anyone to believe that the additional work was part of Respondent’s scope of work. 76. Mr. P. Webb testified that Mr. R. Webb did not have the authority to sign contracts on behalf of Respondent and that Respondent did not receive any of the money that Complainant paid for the side job. 77. The County’s April 17, 2012 Inspection Report required the gluelam beam that replaced the wall that was removed to be verified for proper structural support. Gap in Wall Around Wood-Burning Stove, Trim Around Wood-Burning Stove, Trim Around Step (CWO Item Nos. 25, 26, and 33) 78. Inspector Emry testified that there is a brick masonry hearth with a ½” gap where the wall met the hearth. Inspector Emry testified that he could not tell whether Respondent performed work in the area, but if it did, it should have closed the gap. 79. Respondent did not deny that it installed the trim around the hearth. 80. Inspector Emry testified that the wood trim was not secured around the hearth. 81. Inspector Emry testified that the trim around the step should be consistent with other trim, at least in the same room. / / / / / / / / Missing Blinds, Heater Knob, Inoperable Solar Tube, Beeping and Missing Fire Alarms (CWO Item Nos. 27, 32, 40, 82, and 102) 82. Inspector Emry testified that the Xactimate estimate required blinds to be installed, but that he did not remember if the blinds were to be new or if the existing blinds were to be reinstalled. Page 5 of the estimate attached to Respondent’s written answer included the description, “Detach & Reset Window Blind.” 83. Complainant pointed out blinds that had been taken down in photographs that he had taken while Respondent was working on the vacation house. Complainant testified that the house now has no blinds and that no one has attempted to explain to him what became of the blinds. 84. Mr. R. Webb testified that because the blinds were old, plastic, and broken, Complainant instructed Respondent not to reinstall them. Mr. R. Webb testified that Complainant said that he would purchase new blinds for Respondent to install. Mr. R. Webb testified that Respondent left the old blinds in the vacation house and that he did not know what happened to them. 85. Inspector Emry testified that he believed that Respondent moved the heater and lost the knob. The insurance estimate attached to Respondent’s written answer did not include a line item referencing the heater. 86. Inspector Emry testified that there was an inoperable solar tube above the master bath tub. Inspector Emry testified that Respondent was responsible for the inoperable solar tube because its representative informed him at the initial jobsite inspection that it had attempted to repair the solar tube. Inspector Emry acknowledged that Respondent’s continuing responsibility for the solar tube would depend on the parties’ understanding. 87. Inspector Emry testified that there was only one fire alarm that beeped in the living room. Inspector Emry testified that it could be easily repaired by changing the battery. 88. The County’s April 17, 2012 Inspection Report required that installation of smoke detectors be completed. 89. The insurance estimate did not include a line item for fire alarms. Inspector Emry testified that when Respondent repaired the drywall, it would have needed to remove or tape around the fire alarms. Missing Chicken Wire to Hold Insulation in Crawlspace, Uninsulated Plumbing, and Incomplete Perimeter Insulation in Crawlspace (CWO Item Nos. 34, 63, 84, 94, and 98) 90. Inspector Emry testified that the Xactimate estimate required Respondent to install chicken wire to hold the batt insulation between the joist bays in the crawlspace under the house. Inspector Emry testified that regardless of the method, the batt insulation needed to be supported. 91. Inspector Emry testified that he understood that Respondent had taken up and replaced the whole subfloor. Inspector Emry testified that he did not go under the house to examine the entire crawlspace, but that when he looked into the two access doors, he could see that there was no support for the batt insulation and that some insulation had fallen down. 92. Inspector Emry testified that he could see 4’ to 6’ into the crawlspace from the two access doors and could see some flex water lines were not insulated. Inspector Emry testified that applicable code does not necessarily require water lines in crawlspaces beneath houses to be insulated. Inspector Emry testified that the water lines must be secured, however; they cannot lie on the ground of the crawlspace. 93. Mr. R. Webb testified that he looked up online the manufacturer’s specifications for Pex water line that Respondent had installed in the crawlspace. Mr. R. Webb testified that the manufacturer’s specifications recommended against insulating Pex in crawlspaces because Pex is guaranteed not to burst if it freezes and that if the Pex froze, insulation could inhibit thawing. 94. The County’s April 17, 2012 Inspection Report required the water lines that were installed in the crawlspace below the floor joists be insulated because such lines were not protected by floor insulation. 95. Inspector Emry testified that the parties agreed that Respondent was required to install insulation at the perimeter of the crawlspace on the block stem wall. Inspector Emry testified that he could see some insulation on the block wall through the access doors, but that he had been unable to confirm that the whole stem wall was covered with foam insulation. Inspector Emry testified that he did not see any missing foam insulation. 96. The County’s April 17, 2012 Inspection Report required any insulation in the floor that was disturbed or removed to be replaced. The Inspection Report did not definitively state that there was any missing or disturbed insulation. Water Heater Vent, Incomplete Installation of Water Heater, and Improper Repair of Hole (CWO Item Nos. 64, 71, 72,and 95) 97. Inspector Emry testified that he could not verify that the roof leaked where the water heater vent went through the roof, but that the vent violated code by coming up through a valley where two roofs met. 98. Inspector Emry testified that the water heater was not in the same place that it had occupied before the damage to the vacation house. Because the location of the water heater vent violated code, the water heater should be relocated. 99. Complainant testified that initially he erroneously purchased a natural gas water heater for the project and Respondent installed the water heater. Complainant testified that because the vacation house does not have natural gas service, he later purchased a butane water heater, but that Respondent did not complete installation of the butane heater. 100. Inspector Emry testified that the vent stack for the water heater originally was installed horizontally and that the heater was vented through the east wall. Inspector Emry testified that Respondent had left a hole in the wall with a piece of plywood screwed down and that the repair was inadequate. 101. The County’s April 17, 2012 Inspection Report required that the water heater be installed and properly vented through the roof. Missing Draft Stops, Missing Blocking at Penetrations, and Failure to Seal Penetrations through Floor (CWO Item Nos. 75, 83, and 96) 102. Inspector Emry testified that blocking was required to support the edge of the floor between floor joists where the floor met the wall. Inspector Emry testified that when he performed his initial jobsite inspection, a light had been left on in the crawlspace and that the light was visible through the floor, indicating missing blocking. 103. With respect to CWO Item No. 83, Inspector Emry testified that the CWO referred to other items as examples of where Respondent made penetrations through the floor and either failed to secure the installation or failed to block the area where the floor met the wall. 104. The County’s April 17, 2012 Inspection Report required that all penetrations in the floor be sealed properly. Debris in Cistern and at Jobsite, Dirty Toilets, and Overspray on Windows (CWO Item Nos. 77, 78, 89, and 91) 105. Inspector Emry testified that there were several inches of water in the cistern and that he could see debris in the cistern. 106. Inspector Emry testified that the jobsite was cleaner at his prehearing inspection than it had been at his initial jobsite inspection, but that there was still debris on the southeastern side of the house. 107. Inspector Emry testified that as he walked through the residence on the morning of the original jobsite inspection, it appeared that Respondent had abandoned the job without making any effort to clean the jobsite. The toilets had stains in them, but no water because the water had evaporated. 108. Inspector Emry testified that all the windows and oak window sills in the vacation house had a gritty film on them from paint or stain. 109. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website on December 14, 2012. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. KB-1.256841-D was current and that one complaint was pending against the license. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[15] Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence.[16] Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.[17] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[18] Complainant did not establish that the scope of Respondent’s contract included or that Respondent was responsible for the gap at the gluelam beam, the missing sheetrock, the skylight, the exterior gable siding, the heater knob, the inoperable solar tube, the insulation in the floor, or the beeping or uninstalled fire alarms (CWO Item Nos. 23, 24, 40, 48, 82, 86, 88, and 102). Therefore, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated any contracting law with respect to these items. Although Complainant established that Respondent’s contract required it to take down and reinstall the blinds, Complainant did not establish that Respondent is responsible for the loss of the blinds. Therefore, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated any contracting law with respect to the blinds (CWO Item Nos. 27 and 32). Although Complainant established that Respondent’s contract required it to install the faucet on the bathtub in the master bathroom, Respondent established that Complainant provided a faucet that was too short and is unwilling to provide or to allow Respondent to install an adequate faucet. Therefore, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated any contracting law with respect to the faucet on the bathtub in the master bathroom (CWO Item No. 48A). Complainant did not establish Respondent failed to install insulation at the perimeter of the crawlspace on the block stem wall (CWO Item No. 84). Therefore, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated any contracting law with respect to the insulation at the perimeter of the crawlspace. Complainant acknowledged that because he had replaced the radiant heat system, Respondent’s failure to secure the water lines to the heater (CWO Item No. 66) was no longer an issue. The Administrative Law Judge must defer to the opinion of the local building authority concerning code requirements. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated applicable code in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)[19] and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely R4-9-108,[20] in the following respects: 1. Installing of the junction box with a cut ground wire and poor electrical work on the subfloor (CWO Item Nos.12, 85, and 101); 2. Failing to install chicken wire to hold insulation in place in the crawlspace and insulation on the water lines below the floor joists (CWO Item Nos. 34, 63, 94, and 100); 3. Failing to install draft stops and to seal holes in the floor (CWO Items Nos. 75, 83, and 96); 4. Improperly installing the water heater and water heater vent (CWO Item Nos. 64, 71, and 95); and 5. Failing to comply with the manufacturer’s specifications for installing the water pump (CWO Item No. 70). Complainant established that Respondent failed to perform its scope of work in a professional and workmanlike manner, in violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, in the following respects: 1. Leaving debris in the paint of the walls and ceilings of certain rooms (CWO Item Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 20, 21, 29, 30, 35, 36, 42, 43, 57, and 58); 2. Failing to secure water lines and to complete plumbing (CWO Item Nos. 6, 7, 67, 68, 73, 74, and 93); 3. Purchasing and installing a shower door that was too short in the hall bath and failure to seal the tub surround in the master bath (CWO Item Nos. 38 and 44); 4. Failing to install angle stops on the hall bath (CWO Item Nos. 53, 53A); 5. Leaving unsanded and unprepped doors throughout the house, a missing doorknob in bedroom 1, and missing electrical plates in the kitchen (CWO Item Nos. 3, 10, 13, 28, and 56); 6. Leaving a missing drawer face, dented drawer, and cracked cabinet in the kitchen (CWO Item Nos. 14, 18, and 19); 7. Leaving a gap and loose trim around the wood-burning stove and loose trim around the step (CWO Item Nos. 25, 26, and 33); 8. Improperly repairing the hole where in the exterior wall where the water heater vent had been removed (CWO Item No. 72); and 9. Leaving debris in the cistern and at the jobsite, dirty toilets, and overspray on windows and window sills (CWO Item Nos. 77, 78, 89, and 91). Because Respondent’s invoices did not show its license number preceded by the acronym “ROC,” Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13), namely, A.R.S. § 32-1124(B).[21] Because Respondent’s Work Order Authorization, letterhead, and invoices did not show the name on Respondent’s License No. KB-1.256841-D, Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15).[22] Complainant informed Respondent that he would not allow it to attempt to comply with the CWO when some of the 15 days still remained. Complainant made no attempt to ascertain whether Mr. P. Webb could schedule Respondent’s employees and subcontractors to perform repairs any earlier. Under the circumstances, Complainant unreasonably denied access to Respondent, providing legal justification for Respondent’s failure to comply with the CWO. Therefore, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23).[23] RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, Respondent Restoration Pointe LLC’s License No. KB-1.256841-D be suspended until Respondent remedies the statutory violations established in this matter. It is further recommended that the Registrar not suspend Respondent’s license and, instead, close Complainant Kenneth A. Lyster’s Complaint in Case No. 2011-5915 if on or before the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, Respondent provides written proof that is satisfactory to the Registrar of the following: 1) Respondent has corrected or completed in a professional and workmanlike manner and in compliance with all building codes and manufacturer’s specifications the items of workmanship found to be deficient or incomplete in Conclusions of Law Nos. 9 and 10; or 2) Complainant has denied Respondent reasonable access to repair or complete its work; and 3) Respondent has requested a name change with the Registrar’s Licensing Department and/or has revised its website, estimate form, contract form, invoice form, proposal form, business cards, letterhead, advertising, and any other documents used in its contracting business to reflect the name shown on its License, as required by A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15), and to include its License number, as required by A.R.S. § 32-1124(B). 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, December 18, 2012.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] The Administrative Law Judge amended the caption to omit Deborah V. Voge’s name as a party complainant at Complainant Kenneth A. Lyster’s request after he testified at the hearing that Ms. Voge is his former girlfriend, with whom he is no longer involved and who does not own any interest in the property where the work was performed. [2] According to the Registrar’s public website, Valley Wide Restoration, Inc. holds License Nos. B-3.238482-R and K-61.233573-D. [3] The Registrar’s public website does not contain a listing for East Valley Restoration. The Registrar’s website contains a listing for East Valley Disaster Services Inc., License No. B.097838-R. [4] According to the Registrar’s public website, Stuart Malcolm MacLay is East Valley Disaster Services Inc.’s and Respondent’s qualifying party. [5] See Respondent’s Exhibit R-1. [6] See, e.g., Invoice # FC 283 dated November 1, 2011, and Invoice # FC 291 dated November 15, 2011. [7] See, e.g., Respondent’s letter dated July 27, 2011, and Invoice # 657 dated August 25, 2011. [8] See Complainant’s Exhibit C-3 at LYS00020. [9] See Complainant’s Exhibit C-9 at LYS00041-00042. [10] See Complainant’s Exhibit C-3 at LYS00021. [11] See Complainant’s Exhibit C-9 at LYS00043. [12] Because the house is not rectangular, it has more than four exterior walls. [13] Complainant’s Exhibit 9. [14] According the Registrar’s public website, Mr. R. Webb is listed on License Nos. B.269605-R issued to 724 Restore LLC (suspended for lack of bond on September 9, 2012), B.251606-R issued to Builders Quorum LLC (expired on March 1, 2012), and B.278300-R issued to Builders Quorum LLC (current). [15] See A.R.S. § 32-1151 to A.R.S. § 32-1169. [16] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [17] See A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2). [18] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [19] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[d]eparture from or disregard of plans or specifications or any building codes of any state or any political subdivision of the state in any material respect which is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner’s duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.” [20] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.” A.A.C. R4-9-108 requires that “[a]ll work shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner” and that “[a]ll work shall be performed in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.” [21] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure in any material respect to comply with this chapter.” A.R.S. § 32-1124(B) requires that licensed contractors include their license number “preceded by the acronym ‘ROC’“ on “all written bids submitted by the licensee and . . . on all advertising, loan forms, lending institution forms, letterheads and other documents used by the licensee in the conduct of business regulated by this chapter.” [22] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[a]cting in the capacity of a contractor under any license issued under this chapter in a name other than as set forth upon the license.” [23] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar.”

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

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