ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2012A-580-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2012-10-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 19, 2012, at 8:15 a.m. APPEARANCES: Patricia Gillmore and Jim Stecher (hereinafter “Complainants”) appeared through their attorney, T’shura-Ann Elias, Esq., Gregory & Elias, PLC. Seville Builders Inc (hereinafter “Seville”) appeared through its authorized representative and qualifying party, Wesley Joseph Yonda. 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. Seville is the holder of License No. B.047392-R issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where Seville performed remodeling work on Complainants’ residence pursuant to a series of written proposals. The March 10, 2011 Remodel Agreement, the August 14, 2011 Proposal, and the October 18, 2011 contract document prepared by Seville do not contain the minimum elements of a contract, including a provision that the property owner has a right to file a written complaint with the Registrar of Contractors.[1] 3. Complainants were dissatisfied with Seville’s workmanship and with Seville’s failure to complete its work in a timely manner. When Seville failed to correct its work to Complainants’ satisfaction, despite their repeated requests that it do so, Complainants filed a formal Complaint against Seville with the Registrar of Contractors. 4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal Complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector, Cliff Corlett (hereinafter “Inspector Corlett”), conducted an onsite inspection. Inspector Corlett issued a written Corrective Work Order on February 28, 2012, directing Seville to perform designated corrective work on Complainants’ residence. 5. The Corrective Work Order corresponded to Complainants’ enumerated items on their Complaint and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 1. Trim above front entry incomplete. Registrar of Contractors (ROC) ***** Agree. Respondent (R/P [)] should complete by appropriate methods.

2. Stone work behind T V incomplete. ROC ***** There were no drawings, plans or specifications supplied with the complaint or presented at the job site that adequately and or completely defines the scope of the work and or changes the parties agreed to, this would include whether the stone work was to be stopped where the R/P states the C/P directed him to or to completely cover the wall. This lack of drawings, plans and or specifications applies to other complaint items below. NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.

3. Painting of sliding glass door incomplete. ROC ***** Agreed, R/P should correct by appropriate methods.

4. Closet in garage incomplete, rods & shelves. ROC ***** Agreed, R/P should correct by appropriate methods.

5. Garage floor not painted. ROC ***** There was some minor paint overspray on the garage floor. R/P agreed to properly clean off overspray. If R/P is unable to properly remove overspray, then the R/P agreed to epoxy paint the affected garage floor.

6. Garage inside wall base incomplete. ROC ***** Agree[d], R/P agreed to properly complete base.

7. No vent installed in garage man cave. ROC ***** Agreed, R/P agreed to properly install.

8. Cracked switch plate in hall. ROC ***** Agreed, R/P agreed to properly replace.

9. Unfinished stucco where downspout was removed. ROC ***** There was a downspout on the dining room side of house that the Complainant (C/P) state[d] the R/P failed to remove and stuccoed around. C/P later had the downspout removed and the stucco patched/repaired by others. Patch/repair is of poor quality visually. Since the C/P had others remove the spout and repair the stucco this directive cannot require corrective work from the R/P for others[’] poorly matching stucco work. NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.

10. New garage door opener extremely noisy. ROC ***** New garage door opener was not installed in location C/P is indicating. The R/P states that the parties agreed to reuse the old opener (which is noisy) and that there was a credit given back to the C/P for the new opener. At this point this appears to be a contract / money dispute.

11. Handrails to down stairs incomplete. ROC ***** Agreed, R/P should complete all handrails to a proper appearance and to comply with all current building codes.

12. No vent cover on pool room vent. ROC ***** R/P agreed to supply and install a vent register cover in the pool room ceiling.

13. Ceiling in wine room not painted. ROC ***** See # 2 above. NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.

14. Ice maker and dishwasher not installed in man cave[.]. ROC ***** Agreed, R/P should correct by appropriate methods.

15. Seam in kitchen countertop rough. ROC ***** Agreed, R/P should correct by appropriate methods.

16. Kitchen window not a pass-thru installation. ROC ***** See # 2 above. NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.

17. Sprinkler system in front yard destroyed. ROC ***** It is not uncommon for existing irrigation systems, lighting systems and or landscaping to be damaged and or destroyed during the course of remodeling. R/P’s proposals/contracts have no disclaimer language limiting or exempting the contractor from responsibility for damage to Complainants[’] property as a course of construction. R/P is responsible for all damages. R/P should correct by appropriate methods.

18. Outside light in front, cut, not re-connected. ROC ***** Agreed, See # 17 above. R/P should correct by appropriate methods.

19. Front driveway damaged, not repaired. ROC ***** Agreed, See # 17 above. R/P should correct by appropriate methods.

20. Sidewalk on dining room side broken, not repaired. ROC ***** Agreed, See # 17 above. R/P should correct by appropriate methods.

21. Extend sidewalk width on dining room side not done. ROC ***** Agreed, R/P should properly complete.

22. Landscaping on dining room side and front destroyed. ROC ***** Agreed, See # 17 above. R/P should correct by appropriate methods

23. Fireplace in master bedroom not connected. ROC ***** R/P agreed to properly complete.

24. Water spigot by green house in court yard cut, not re- connected. ROC ***** Water spigot in question appears to have been incorporated into the irrigation system and was “removed” to facilitate the installation of a new A/C concrete pad and unit. It is unclear if this spigot was properly installed and properly separated from the potable water system. (up to code). R/P should determine if spigot met code requirements. IF removed spigot met code requirements then the R/P should properly replace spigot. IF spigot did not meet code [then] this agency will not direct the R/P to replace it.

25. Electricity by green house cut, not re-connected. ROC ***** It is questionable if the electrical in the green house shed was legal and met code. R/P should determine if the electrical in the shed was legal or not. This is the same situation as # 24 above, with the same directive.

26. Cracking in floor tile in kitchen. ROC ***** R/P agreed to properly correct.

27. Cracking in floor medallion in entry. ROC ***** R/P agreed to properly correct.

28. Master bedroom closet was not completed. ROC ***** Finished prior to inspection.

29. Man cave wet bar countertop not completed. ROC ***** Contract dispute as to whether granite counter top was to be installed in man cave. C/P has since had a polished metal diamond plate countertop installed by others.

6. At the onset of the scheduled hearing the parties stipulated that item numbers 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, and 28 had either been corrected by Seville or were acceptable to Complainants and were no longer at issue. 7. Inspector Corlett testified that he performed a prehearing inspection at Complainants’ residence on October 18, 2012. 8. Inspector Corlett testified that he did not order any corrective work for the stone work behind the television set (item number 2 of the Corrective Work Order). Inspector Corlett stated that he observed nothing that would require Seville to perform any corrective work on the stone work behind the television set. 9. Inspector Corlett testified that Seville had painted the interior of the sliding glass door but not the exterior of the sliding glass door (item number 3 of Corrective Work Order). Inspector Corlett stated that exterior of the sliding glass door is bronze iodized metal that is not usually painted. Inspector Corlett testified that no work by Seville was required. 10. Inspector Corlett testified that Complainants’ garage floor had paint overspray on it (item number 5 of the Corrective Work Order). Inspector Corlett stated that Seville had agreed either to properly remove the overspray or to paint the affected area of the garage floor. Inspector Corlett testified that the garage floor still has not been corrected. Inspector Corlett stated that both parties informed him that Complainants no longer were allowing Seville access to the garage to perform the directed corrective work on the garage floor. 11. Inspector Corlett testified that the dispute over the new garage door opener (item number 10 of the Corrective Work Order) was a contract/money dispute. Inspector Corlett stated that he did not have enough information to require Seville to install a new garage door opener. Inspector Corlett testified that no action was required by Seville for this item. 12. Inspector Corlett testified that the ceiling in the wine room is not painted (item number 13 of the Corrective Work Order). Inspector Corlett stated that the ceiling in the wine room was old drywall that had never been finished. Inspector Corlett stated that the ceiling for the wine room was not ready for painting. Inspector Corlett stated that no action was required by Seville for this item. 13. Inspector Corlett testified that Seville had agreed to install an ice maker and dishwasher in the “man cave” (item number 14 of the Corrective Work Order). Inspector Corlett stated that the parties had become involved in a controversy regarding the installation of a sink and that Complainants had caused another contractor to install the ice maker and dishwasher. 14. Inspector Corlett testified that he examined the seam in the kitchen countertop (item number 15 of the Corrective Work Order). Inspector Corlett stated that Seville had corrected the seam in the countertop to within applicable workmanship and industry standards. 15. Inspector Corlett testified that the kitchen window (item number 16 of the Corrective Work Order) is not a pass-through window. Inspector Corlett stated that he had no plans or specifications that would allow him to make a determination that the installation of a pass-through window was required. Inspector Corlett testified that no action was required by Seville for this item. 16. Inspector Corlett testified that Complainants’ front yard sprinkler system had been damaged (item number 17 of the Corrective Work Order) during the course of remodeling work by Seville. Inspector Corlett stated that Seville had constructed the foundation for a new Casita and he felt that Seville was responsible for correcting the problem. Inspector Corlett testified that Complainants showed that the landscape lighting was still not operational. Inspector Corlett testified that he observed that the ground around the landscape lighting had been disturbed and modified by someone other than Seville. 17. Inspector Corlett testified that electrical line for the exterior light in the front of Complainants’ property had been cut and had not been reconnected (item number 18 of the Corrective Work Order). Inspector Corlett stated that Complainants have had the Casita completed by another contractor that performed earthwork and concrete work in the same area. 18. Inspector Corlett testified that the parties informed him that the damaged front driveway (item number 19 of the Corrective Work Order) had been corrected by another contractor. 19. Inspector Corlett testified that the landscaping on the dining room side and front of Complainants’ residence (item number 22 of the Corrective Work Order) had been damaged by Seville. Inspector Corlett stated that he observed two new plants installed by Seville and that the area had been disturbed and modified by someone other than Seville. 20. Inspector Corlett testified that the water spigot by the green house and the electrical line to the green house had been cut and not reconnected (item numbers 24 and 25 of the Corrective Work Order). Inspector Corlett stated that he felt that both the water and electrical installations had been “boot-legged” prior to Seville’s work on Complainants’ residence and were not up to code requirements. Inspector Corlett testified that he did not believe that the electrical and plumbing installations were legal and that the Registrar of Contractors could not order a licensed contractor to correct non-code compliant items that it did not install. 21. Inspector Corlett testified that the parties were in sharp dispute regarding the installation of a granite countertop in the “man cave” (item No.29 of the Corrective Work Order). Inspector Corlett stated that Complainants had completed this item by installing a polished metal plate countertop. No action by Seville was required for this item. 22. Inspector Corlett testified that Seville had advised him that it had been denied access to Complainants’ residence to correct the garage floor. Inspector Corlett stated that he received several telephone calls from Seville indicating that access was denied. Inspector Corlett acknowledged that he had seen nothing in writing in support of the alleged denial of access. 23. Inspector Corlett testified that Seville had stated that it had been denied access to paint the ceiling of the wine room. Inspector Corlett stated that he did not recall if Seville disputed a contractual obligation to paint the wine room ceiling. 24. Inspector Corlett opined that Seville had complied with the terms of the Corrective Work Order.[2] 25. Patricia Gillmore (hereinafter “Ms. Gillmore”) testified that the written proposals provided by Seville failed to contain all of the items that Seville had agreed to construct for Complainants. Ms. Gillmore stated that there were also oral change orders to the parties’ written construction agreements. 26. Ms. Gillmore testified that Seville failed to fully comply with the terms of the Corrective Work Order. Ms. Gillmore stated that Complainants were cooperative in providing access to their residence and that they never denied access to Seville.[3] 27. Ms. Gillmore testified that there is no rock work behind Complainants’ television set. Ms. Gillmore stated that Complainants have paid Seville to install the rock work behind the television set. 28. Ms. Gillmore testified that Seville failed to paint the exterior of the sliding door. Ms. Gillmore stated that the exterior of the sliding door should be painted. 29. Ms. Gillmore testified that during the remodeling work on Complainants’ residence, Seville allowed paint overspray on Complainants’ garage floor. Ms. Gillmore stated that Seville agreed either to clean the paint overspray from the garage floor or to paint the garage floor. Ms. Gillmore testified that Seville failed to perform any corrective work on the garage floor. Ms. Gillmore stated that Complainants never denied Seville access to their garage.[4] 30. Ms. Gillmore testified that Complainants paid Seville for the installation of a new garage door opener. Ms. Gillmore stated that Complainants did not receive a new garage door opener. Ms. Gillmore denied that Complainants agreed to use the old garage door opener. 31. Ms. Gillmore stated that Complainants paid Seville to paint the ceiling in the wine room and that the ceiling in the wine room has not been painted. 32. Ms. Gillmore testified that an ice maker and a dishwasher were to be installed in the “man cave.” Ms. Gillmore stated that Seville failed to install the ice maker and dishwasher. Ms. Gillmore testified that Complainants paid $787.50 to another contractor to install the ice maker and dishwasher. 33. Ms. Gillmore disagreed with Inspector Corlett’s testimony regarding the seam in the granite countertop. Ms. Gillmore stated that the granite countertop had not been corrected within applicable workmanship standards. 34. Ms. Gillmore testified that the kitchen window in Complainants’ residence was supposed to be a pass-through window. Ms. Gillmore stated that there is a built-in counter on the exterior of the window. Ms. Gillmore testified that Complainants should receive a financial credit from Seville for its failure to install the pass-through window. 35. Ms. Gillmore testified that Seville damaged Complainants’ underground sprinkler system in Complainants’ front yard. Ms. Gillmore stated that Seville failed to correct the sprinkler system. Ms. Gillmore testified that Complainants had the sprinkler system corrected by another contractor. 36. Ms. Gillmore testified that Seville failed to re-connect the exterior light in Complainants’ front yard. Ms. Gillmore stated that the light is still not functional. 37. Ms. Gillmore testified that Seville failed to correct the landscaping on the dining room side of Complainants’ residence. 38. Ms. Gillmore testified that the water spigot and electrical line to Complainants’ greenhouse worked before Seville performed work on the remodeling project. Ms. Gillmore stated that Seville damaged the water connection to the spigot and the electrical line to the greenhouse. Ms. Gillmore testified that Seville failed to provide any information that the waterline to the water spigot and the electrical line to the greenhouse were not code compliant. 39. Ms. Gillmore testified that the countertop in the “man cave” was supposed to be a granite countertop because there was no water going to the wet bar. Ms. Gillmore stated that she was frustrated with waiting and caused the plumbing work to be performed and an alternative type of countertop installed by another contractor. 40. Steve Palmieri (hereinafter “Mr. Palmieri”) testified that he is the owner of Palmieri Construction Inc. Mr. Palmieri testified that he completed the construction of Complainants’ Casita. Mr. Palmieri stated that he performed a “walk-through” of Complainants’ residence and visually observed all of the items set forth in the Corrective Work Order. 41. Mr. Palmieri testified that he concurred with the terms of Corrective Work Order regarding the stone work behind the television set. Mr. Palmieri stated that the stone work is acceptable as completed. 42. Mr. Palmieri testified that the exteriors of sliding glass doors are not usually painted. 43. Mr. Palmieri testified that Complainants informed him that Seville was denied access to Complainants’ garage because of the damage that Seville caused to personal property in Complainants’ garage. Mr. Palmieri’s testimony regarding Complainants’ denial of access to Seville is found to be credible. 44. Complainants’ denial of access it found to be unreasonable. 45. Mr. Palmieri testified that the installation of the dishwasher and ice maker necessarily would have included the installation of plumbing for the dishwasher and ice maker. 46. Mr. Palmieri denied that Palmieri Construction Inc. caused any damage to Complainants’ sprinkler system. 47. Mr. Palmieri testified that he examined the spigot and the electrical line to the green house. Mr. Palmieri stated that the Corrective Work Order did not require Seville to provide anything in writing, but only to examine and determine if the spigot and the electrical line were code compliant. Mr. Palmieri testified that the spigot and electrical line did not meet code and that both the spigot and the electrical line had to be brought within applicable code requirements before they could be reconnected. 48. Steven Cheney (hereinafter “Mr. Cheney”) testified that he worked for McGovern Concrete. Mr. Cheney stated that all of the concrete work performed by McGovern Concrete was performed in a professional and workmanlike manner. Mr. Cheney testified that he personally observed another contractor using heavy equipment in Complainants’ yard. 49. Michael Dennis McGovern (hereinafter “Mr. McGovern”) testified he was present on the jobsite with Mr. Cheney and concurred with his testimony. 50. Seville’s qualifying party, Wesley Joseph Yonda (hereinafter “Mr. Yonda”), testified that all of the stone work installed in Complainants’ residence was in accordance with Complainants’ instructions. 51. Mr. Yonda testified that the exterior of the sliding glass door does not require painting. Mr. Yonda stated that there was nothing in the parties’ construction agreements requiring Seville to paint the exterior of the sliding glass door. 52. Mr. Yonda testified that Complainants contacted Seville and informed it that Seville’s employees were not re-enter Complainants’ garage at any time. 53. Mr. Yonda testified that Complainants elected to utilize their existing garage door opener to save money. 54. Mr. Yonda testified that Complainants informed Seville that they did not want Seville to paint the ceiling in the wine room. 55. Mr. Yonda testified that he agreed that Seville was to install the dishwasher and the ice maker in the “man cave.” Mr. Yonda stated that he asked Complainants to inform Seville after the sink in the “man cave” was installed and plumbed. Mr. Yonda testified that Seville would have installed the dishwasher and ice maker had Complainants allowed Seville access to perform the work. 56. Mr. Yonda testified that the seam in Complainants’ granite countertop was properly corrected. Mr. Yonda stated that Seville fully corrected Complainants’ sprinkler system and landscaping in accordance with the terms of the Corrective Work Order and that Complainants’ exterior light has been corrected in accordance with the terms of the Corrective Work Order. 57. Mr. Yonda testified that Seville was not required to install a granite countertop in the “man cave.” 58. Mr. Yonda testified that Complainants denied Seville access to Complainants’ residence to correct the paint overspray on Complainants’ garage floor. Mr. Yonda acknowledged that Seville did not provide Complainant with a written request for access to Complainants’ residence. 59. Administrative notice is taken of Seville’s prior license record as reflected on the Registrar of Contractors’ public website on October 23, 2012. Such prior license record reflects that License No. B.047392-R of Seville is current with one open complaint. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119. 2. A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law Of Evidence § 5 (1960). 3. Complainants have had the dishwasher, ice maker, and countertop installed by another contractor. Therefore, the credible evidence of record was insufficient to support a finding that Seville was required to install a countertop in the “man cave.” No further action by Seville was shown to be required for these items. Although Seville failed to install the agreed-upon ice maker and dishwasher in the “man cave” as specified in the parties’ written construction agreements, Complainants were responsible for having the sink plumbed as a condition precedent for such installation. Because Complainants did not have the plumbing performed during the time they allowed Seville to work on the remodeling project, This Tribunal concludes that Seville did not violate the charged provision of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2).[5] 4. There was no dispute that Seville corrected item numbers 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, and 28 of the Corrective Work Order. There was no dispute that Seville inadvertently damaged Complainants’ garage floor and personal belongings with paint overspray. This Tribunal concludes that Seville thereby violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108.[6] 5. The March 10, 2011 Remodel Agreement, the August 14, 2011 Proposal, and the October 18, 2011 contract prepared by Seville do not contain the minimum elements of a contract, including a provision that the property owner has a right to file a written complaint with the Registrar of Contractors for alleged violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). This Tribunal concludes that Seville violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(13), namely, A.R.S. § 32-1158.[7] 6. Credible testimony supported findings that establish that another contractor has modified Seville’s corrective work on the sprinkler system in the front yard, the exterior front light, the front driveway, and the landscaping on the dining room side of Complainants’ residence. This Tribunal concludes that no further corrective action by Seville is warranted for these items.[8] 7. No corrective action was required on the stone work behind the television set, the garage door opener, the ceiling in the wine room, and the kitchen window. This Tribunal concludes that the credible evidence of record is insufficient to support a finding that Seville should be required to perform corrective action on these items. 8. Credible testimony and evidence established that Seville properly painted the sliding glass door and that the rough seam in the kitchen countertop has been corrected to within applicable workmanship and industry standards. This Tribunal concludes that no further corrective action by Seville is required on these items. 9. The assigned Agency Inspector and Mr. Palmieri testified that the disconnected water spigot and the electrical line to Complainants’ green house failed to meet applicable code requirements. Seville is not responsible for bringing the water spigot and the electrical line to within applicable code requirements. No action by Seville was shown to be appropriate for the disconnected water spigot and the electrical line to Complainants’ greenhouse. 10. Credible testimony and evidence established that Complainants denied Seville reasonable access to their garage to correct the paint overspray on Complainants’ garage floor. This Tribunal concludes that the unreasonable denial of access precludes a finding that Seville violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23).[9] RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that commencing on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, License No. B.047392-R of Seville shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives and accepts written proof that Seville has brought all of its contracts into compliance with the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1158. It is further recommended that if Seville provides acceptable proof that it has brought all of its contract forms into compliance with the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1158 on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License suspension shall not take place and that this matter shall 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, October 26, 2012.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors

----------------------- [1] See Complaint with attachments. [2] 10/19/12 Hearing Record (hereinafter “H.R.”) at 55:20-55:50. [3] H.R. at 1:03:00-1:05:10. [4] H.R. at 1:08:38-1:15:34. [5] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) includes among the grounds for disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, departure from or disregard of plans or specifications or any building codes of the 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. [6] A.A.C. R4-9-108 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

B. A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.

C. All work performed by a contractor in a county, city, or town that has not adopted building codes or where any adopted building codes do not contain specific provisions applicable to that aspect of construction work shall be performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

[7] A.R.S. § 32-1158 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A. From and after December 31, 1992 until December 31, 2007, any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars and less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information: 1. The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and license number. 2. The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description. 3. The date the parties entered into the contract. 4. The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract. 5. A description of the work to be performed under the contract. 6. The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes. 7. The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner. 8. The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract. B. From and after December 31, 2007, any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information: 1. The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and license number. 2. The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description. 3. The date the parties entered into the contract. 4. The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract. 5. A description of the work to be performed under the contract. 6. The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes. 7. The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner. 8. The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract. 9. That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A. The contract shall contain the registrar's telephone number and website address and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in section 32-1155, subsection A. The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the contract in at least ten point bold type, and the contract shall be signed by the property owner and the contractor or the contractor's designated representative. This paragraph does not apply to a person who is subject to and complies with section 12-1365. C. At the time of signing a contract the owner shall be provided a legible copy of all documents signed and a written and signed receipt for and in the true amount of any cash paid to the contractor by the owner. D. The requirements of this section shall not constitute prerequisites to the formation or enforcement of a contract. Failure to comply with the requirements of this section shall not constitute a defense by either party to an action for compensation, damages, breach, enforcement or other cause of action based on the contract.

[8] A.R.S. § 32-1155(C) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The registrar shall not issue a citation for failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner or in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards if either: 1. The contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar. 2. The contractor's work has been subject to neglect, modification or abnormal use.

[9] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) includes among the grounds for disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, failure 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. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.

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

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