ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2011A-608-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-08-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 17, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through its authorized representative, Buck Mills. The Respondent failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

Evidence and testimony were presented and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Respondent’s Class C-21 (No. 263432) License was placed on disciplinary suspension until compliance with an Order of the Registrar on June 10, 2011. 2. There was no dispute that the Complainant delivered landscaping materials to the Respondent for several construction projects wherein the Respondent was performing work as a licensed contractor. 3. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the sum of $7,606.00 is the proper balance due and owing to the Complainant from the Respondent for the Complainant’s services in delivering landscaping materials to the Respondent. 4. There was no dispute that notwithstanding repeated attempts and billings over a prolonged period of time, said balance of $7,606.00 remains unpaid. 5. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the owners of the construction projects at issue have paid the Respondent in full for its role in the construction projects at issue. 6. The Respondent‘s failure to pay the aforementioned sum of $7,606.00 to the Complainant is not found to be in good faith and accordingly, under all of the facts and circumstances presented herein the Respondent’s conduct is found to constitute a violation of the applicable charged provisions of the state’s contracting laws. 7. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior license record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Complainant has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the charged sections of the state’s contracting laws. See Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 437-38, 930 P.2d 508 (Ariz. App. 1996). 2. Proof by “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “more likely true than not.” In re Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648, 654 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). 3. Proof by preponderance of the evidence “is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (rev. 6th ed. 1990). 4. Credible testimony and evidence supported findings which establish that the Respondent violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (11) (Failure to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the Respondent’s operations as a licensed contractor). RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order that the Respondent’s License be revoked unless the Registrar receives and accepts written proof that the Respondent has paid the sum of $7,606.00 to the Complainant. It is further recommended that if Respondent provides acceptable poof that it has paid the above described sum of money to the Complainant on or before the effective date of the Registrar’s Order then the aforementioned license revocation shall not take place and that this matter be closed. In the event of certification of this 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 the certification. Done this day, August 17, 2011.

/s/ M. Douglas 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