ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2013A-2295-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2013-10-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 7, 2013, at 8:00 a.m.; the record was held open until October 9, 2013, to allow Respondent Brighton Floor Coverings LLC to submit an additional exhibit. APPEARANCES: Complainant the Registrar of Contractors was represented by Michael D. Raine, Esq., Assistant Attorney General; Respondent Brighton Floor Coverings LLC was represented by Gary R. Blume, Esq., Blume Law Firm, PC. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure 1. On November 24, 2008, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) issued License No. C-8.250945-R to Brighton Floor Coverings LLC (“Respondent”). Rodney Lee Hutchings was listed as Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Member and Helen Elaine Hutchings was listed as Respondent’s Member.[1] 2. Respondent’s C-8 License allows it to perform installation and repair of floor covering materials and accessories, including the C- 8R subclassifications of wood flooring, carpet, composition flooring, non-conventional floor covering, and ceramic and clay floor covering.[2] 3. Respondent’s License No. C-8.250945-R was suspended for non-renewal on December 1, 2012.[3] 4. On July 2, 2013, the Registrar on its own motion issued a Citation and Complaint against Respondent’s License No. C-8.250945-R, based on Respondent’s performance of contracting work on jobs for David A. Wenner and for Melvin Brody. Based on Respondent’s alleged misconduct on the two jobs, the Citation and Complaint charged in fourteen counts possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7), A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(17) (two counts), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) (three counts), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(18), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13), namely, A.R.S. § 32-1124(B), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13), namely, A.R.S. § 32-1158(B), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21). 5. Respondent filed a timely written answer to the Citation and Complaint, admitting that it contracted beyond the scope of its C-8 license, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17), and partially admitting the two charged violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) because the documents it used on the Wenner job and Brody job did not show its contractor’s license number or include the elements that A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) required. Respondent’s written answer denied any other statutory violations and affirmatively alleged that Mr. Hutchings performed the jobs in his personal capacity, not under Respondent’s license.[4] 6. An evidentiary hearing was held on October 7, 2013. The Registrar submitted twenty exhibits and presented the testimony of five witnesses: (1) Mr. Wenner; (2) Mr. Wenner’s sister, Judy Fox; (3) Theodore Gerald, the Registrar’s inspector who was assigned to investigate Mr. Brody’s complaint; (4) Mr. Brody; and (5) Adam Lloyd Stafford, Esq., Assistant Chief of the Registrar’s Legal Department. Respondent submitted one exhibit and presented Mr. Hutchings’ testimony. 7. Mr. Hutchings testified that his file contained signed copies of the contract documents for Mr. Wenner’s job without Mr. Wenner’s hand-written notations. Although the record was held open until October 9, 2013, to allow Respondent time to submit his copies of the documents, Respondent did not submit any additional documentation from Mr. Wenner’s job. Hearing Evidence Paradise Floor Covering Inc.’s License 8. On January 24, 1994, the Registrar issued License No. C-8.100591-R to Paradise Floor Coverings, Inc., an Arizona corporation. The license lists Rodney L. Hutchings as President and Qualifying Party and Helen Elaine Hutchings as Secretary.[5] 9. On August 30, 2010, the Registrar revoked License No. C-8.100591-R issued to Paradise Floor Coverings, Inc. pursuant to the Registrar’s Decision and Order in Case No. 10-0819.[6] 10. Respondent did not dispute or present any evidence to controvert the Registrar’s evidence that Mr. and Ms. Hutchings were listed on License No. C-8.100591-R and that that license had been revoked. Mr. Wenner’s Complaint in Case No. 2012-5881 11. On or about December 6, 2012, Mr. Wenner filed a Complaint with the Registrar alleging that on or about October 3, 2012, he entered into a contract with Respondent for it to perform certain construction work for a bathroom remodeling project including, but not limited to, framing of door openings, drywall, painting, rerouting ductwork for air conditioning, and installing a shower, a toilet, and under-mount sinks at Mr. Wenner’s residence located at 5101 N. Casa Blanca Drive, No. 220, Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253 for the contract price of $50,000.00.[7] 12. The Registrar designated Mr. Wenner’s Complaint as Case No. 2012- 5881. Mr. Wenner’s Complaint alleged that Respondent had abandoned the parties’ contract and that although the scope of work was nowhere near complete, Respondent had demanded payment of an additional $8,000.00 to continue working on the project. Mr. Wenner further alleged that Respondent had knowingly deceived him by representing that Respondent was properly licensed to perform extensive remodeling and that Mr. Wenner was injured thereby. 13. Mr. Wenner provided to the Registrar a copy of Invoice No. 312 dated October 1, 2012, that showed Mr. Hutchings’ name, the scope of work for the bathroom remodeling project, and a total price for the project of $50,000.00, payable by a 50% deposit to start the work, 10% upon completion of the tile work, and the remainder due upon completion.[8] Invoice No. 312 did not show Respondent’s name, license number, or an estimated date of completion, or advise Mr. Wenner of his right to file a complaint with the Registrar. 14. Invoice No. 312 showed the handwritten notations, “Licensed and Bonded,” “10/3/12,” “Attached Incorporated Herein,” and “Check 175 Deposit,” and Mr. Wenner’s and Mr. Hutchings’ signatures. Attached to Invoice was a printout of an e-mail from Ms. Fox to Mr. Wenner dated October 2, 2012, showing additional specifications for the project, Mr. Hutchings’ signature, and the date, “10/3/12.” 15. Mr. Wenner testified that he and Mr. Hutchings sat at Mr. Wenner’s kitchen table to discuss the job. Mr. Wenner informed Mr. Hutchings that he had refinanced his property to finance the project and that he could only afford to spend $50,000.00 to complete the project. 16. Mr. Wenner testified that Mr. Hutchings told him that Respondent would be doing the work. Mr. Wenner testified that after he asked Mr. Hutchings whether his company was licensed and bonded to perform the job, Mr. Hutchings stated unequivocally that it was and Mr. Wenner wrote “Licensed and Bonded” on Invoice No. 312. Mr. Wenner testified that he never would have hired Respondent if Mr. Hutchings had not assured him that Respondent was properly licensed to perform the remodeling project.[9] 17. Mr. Hutchings testified that his file copy of Invoice No. 312 included the parties’ signatures, but not Mr. Wenner’s handwritten notes. As noted above, however, although the record was held open to allow Respondent to submit its copy of Invoice No. 312, Respondent provided no further documentation of its contract with Mr. Wenner. 18. Mr. Wenner testified that he is an attorney, but that his practice concerns medical malpractice, not construction or contract law. He knew that a contractor being properly licensed is important to recover from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund and wanted to make sure that he was protected when he entered into the contract with Respondent. 19. Mr. Wenner testified that after the parties entered into the contract, Mr. Hutchings informed him that the ductwork for the air conditioner was deficient, that a new air conditioning unit was needed, and that the roof over the residence needed to be replaced. 20. Mr. Wenner testified and submitted cancelled checks to show that he paid Mr. Hutchings a total of $62,075.00 as follows: $25,000.00 on October 4, 2012; $15,000.00 on October 25, 2012; $10,000.00 on November 5, 2013; $4,075.00 on November 27, 2012; and $8,000.00 on December 14, 2012.[10] Mr. Wenner testified that Mr. Hutchings stated that the initial 50% deposit was to order fixtures, but Mr. Wenner later learned that no fixtures had been ordered. 21. Mr. Wenner testified that in late October 2012, Mr. Hutchings told him that the job was 80% complete and that he needed more money. Although the bathroom was in disarray, Mr. Wenner paid more money to keep the project moving. Mr. Wenner testified that the $4,075.00 was for the roof and air conditioning unit. Mr. Wenner testified because the work involved the master bathroom, Respondent’s delay in performing the project caused him to suffer great distress. 22. Mr. Wenner testified that after he filed the Complaint with the Registrar, Mr. Hutchings said that he would not complete the job unless Mr. Wenner withdrew the Complaint and paid more money for tile. Mr. Wenner testified that he and Ms. Fox met with Mr. Hutchings at a Starbucks to discuss the status of the project. 23. Mr. Wenner testified that he was concerned that Respondent did not have the money to complete the job. Mr. Wenner testified that his master bathroom looked like a “prison rock pile.” Mr. Wenner testified that Mr. Hutchings told him that he would use the additional $8,000.00 to purchase tile and complete the job. 24. Mr. Wenner testified that he paid Mr. Hutchings the additional $8,000.00 because he wanted the bathroom to be completed. Mr. Wenner prepared a memorandum dated December 4, 2012, showing the work that remained to be performed on the project, with a line for Mr. Hutchings’ signature to acknowledge that he agreed to complete the work without further payment from Mr. Wenner.[11] Mr. Hutchings signed the memorandum. 25. On December 28, 2012, Mr. Wenner asked the Registrar to dismiss without prejudice the Complaint in Case No. 2012-5881 because although Respondent had not performed any further work, Mr. Hutchings had assured Mr. Wenner that Respondent had the resources to complete the project and that it would do so in a timely manner.[12] 26. Mr. Hutchings testified that he met Mr. Wenner through Ms. Fox. Mr. Hutchings testified that Mr. Wenner specifically did not want a contract and did not want Mr. Hutchings to obtain any permits for the remodeling project. 27. Mr. Hutchings testified that he did not complete the job because Ms. Fox was acting as Mr. Wenner’s project manager on the remodeling job and interfering with his subcontractors and that she could not make up her mind on any of the fixtures, tile, or other job components. 28. Mr. Wenner testified that his sister, Ms. Fox, was an interior designer and that she helped him chose materials for the project. Mr. Wenner and Ms. Fox both denied that Ms. Fox acted as the project manager or that she had any other extensive involvement in the project. Mr. Wenner testified that Mr. Hutchings communicated directly with him about the project through e-mail and telephone calls. 29. Mr. Wenner testified that Respondent did not do anything to complete or repair deficient workmanship on the project. On January 11, 2013, Mr. Wenner requested that the Registrar reopen the Complaint in Case No. 2012-5881 and schedule a jobsite inspection.[13] 30. The Registrar assigned Mr. Wenner’s Complaint in Case No. 2012- 5881 to Inspector Jeff Fleetham for investigation. Inspector Fleetham performed a jobsite inspection and on February 11, 2013, issued a Corrective Work Order that stated that Respondent’s license was suspended for non-renewal, which prevented it from performing itself or subcontracting to others the necessary corrective work. The February 11, 2013 Corrective Work Order noted that most of the work in the remodeling project was beyond the scope of Respondent’s C-8 license, that Respondent had not obtained any permits for the work or demonstrated that the work met the requirements of the local building authority, and that the work was deficient and incomplete, and required Respondent to correct the noted deficiencies with fifteen calendar days.[14] 31. Mr. Hutchings testified that he did not complete the remodeling project or comply with the Corrective Work Order because on January 4, 2013, Mr. Wenner terminated him from the project. Respondent submitted Mr. Wenner’s January 4, 2013 letter that stated various concerns. The letter concluded that in light of Mr. Wenner’s recent discovery that Respondent’s license was suspended, Mr. Wenner had lost faith that Respondent could complete the project in a timely or workmanlike manner and that he intended a hire another contractor to complete the project.[15] 32. Mr. Hutchings disputed that some of the items on the Corrective Work Order required correction and testified he was not allowed to repair a skylight in Mr. Wenner’s son’s bedroom because the room was a mess and Mr. Wenner was embarrassed. 33. Mr. Wenner testified that Respondent did not perform any work after the February 11, 2013 Corrective Work Order was issued. Mr. Wenner testified that he had to hire an architect to satisfy the local building authority and to complete the job. Mr. Brody’s Complaint in Case No. 2013-1047 34. On or about February 27, 2013, Mr. Brody filed a Complaint with the Registrar, alleging that on or about December 18, 2012, he entered into a contract with Respondent to perform certain construction work including, but not limited to, installation of kitchen and bathroom cabinets and certain plumbing work at Mr. Brody’s residence located at 8989 North Gainey Center Dr., Scottsdale, Arizona.[16] The Registrar designated Mr. Brody’s Complaint as Case No. 2013-1047. 35. Mr. Brody’s Complaint alleged that Respondent’s work on the construction project did not meet minimum workmanship and professional industry standards. 36. Mr. Brody testified that five years earlier, Respondent had performed flooring work for him and did a great job. Mr. Brody testified that Mr. Hutchings told him that Respondent was a general contractor. Mr. Brody testified that he hired Respondent to be the general contractor on the project and did not hire Mr. Hutchings to work as a consultant. 37. Mr. Brody testified that that his wife Maxine had a terminal disease and was due to be released home at the end of January 2013. Mr. Brody purchased the condominium to make his wife happy, but because the condominium was 20 years old, it needed extensive remodeling. Mr. Brody testified that Mr. Hutchings promised him that the condominium would be ready when Mrs. Brody was released to her home. 38. Mr. Brody provided the Registrar with copies of four invoices with Mr. Hutchings’ name on them that described various remodeling work in the kitchen, laundry room, master bathroom, upstairs bathroom, and hall bathroom, master bedroom, hallway, living room, family room, and office, including installation of plumbing fixtures, baseboards, replacing cabinets, and painting.[17] 39. The invoices were not signed by anyone, did not include an estimated date of completion, did not describe when progress payments and the final payment would be made, did not show Respondent’s name or license number, and did not advise Mr. Brody of his right to file a complaint with the Registrar if he thought that Respondent had violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). 40. Mr. Brody also provided to the Registrar copies of schematic drawings of cabinets in various rooms that Mr. Hutchings had provided for the project.[18] 41. Mr. Brody eventually paid Respondent a total of $73,411.00 in four payments.[19] Mr. Brody testified that when Mr. Hutchings said that more money was needed to keep the project going, Mr. Brody paid more money to get the project completed quickly so that he could bring his wife home. 42. Respondent had not completed the project by the end of January 2013, and because the condominium was not ready, Mrs. Brody was released to a convalescent home. 43. Mr. Brody testified that he saw Mr. Hutchings perform plumbing work on the project and that the only people he ever saw on the job were Respondent’s crew. 44. Mr. Brody’s Complaint in Case No. 2013-1047 was assigned to Inspector Gerold for investigation. Inspector Gerold performed a jobsite inspection on or about March 25, 2013. 45. Inspector Gerold testified that his first jobsite inspection, he told Mr. Hutchings that Respondent was working way outside the scope of its C-8 license and could be disciplined. Inspector Gerold testified that Mr. Hutchings responded, “What of it? Try to stop me.” 46. Mr. Hutchings denied that he made those remarks to Inspector Gerold. Mr. Hutchings testified that, instead, Inspector Gerold stated, “We’re going to nail you so hard for being out of scope.” 47. After the first inspection, Mr. Brody asked Inspector Gerold to amend the Complaint to allege 26 additional complaints about the cabinets that Respondent had installed.[20] 48. Inspector Gerold performed a second jobsite inspection on April 4, 2013. Inspector Gerold testified that the layout of the cabinets at Mr. Brody’s condominium did not match the schematic drawings that Respondent had provided to Mr. Brody. 49. On April 9, 2013, Inspector Gerold issued a Corrective Work Order in Case No. 2013-1047 that noted that Respondent’s license was suspended, that Respondent could not perform or subcontract corrective work, that Respondent’s installation of the cabinets did not conform to the plans, and that the project was incomplete and deficient in numerous respects, and required Respondent to correct the noted deficiencies with fifteen calendar days.[21] 50. On or about April 12, 2013, Mr. Brody again requested that the Complaint be amended to include certain deficiencies in the granite countertops that Respondent had installed.[22] 51. On or about April 25, 2013, Mr. Brody sent a letter to Inspector Gerold, informing him that Respondent had done nothing to comply with the April 9, 2013 Corrective Work Order.[23] 52. Inspector Gerold performed a third jobsite inspection and on April 29, 2013, issued another Corrective Work Order that required Respondent to correct certain deficiencies in the granite countertops within fifteen calendar days.[24] 53. Mr. Hutchings testified that he was never informed of Inspector Gerold’s second and third jobsite inspection. 54. On or about May 10, 2013, Mr. Hutchings sent a facsimile to Mr. Gerold stating that Respondent had repaired all of the items on the April 9, 2013 Corrective Work Order that were within the scope of its license.[25] Mr. Hutchings attached to his facsimile a copy of a list of repairs performed by Cabinets by Design[26] that was signed by Mr. Brody. 55. Mr. Brody testified that he contacted Cabinets by Design and that its principals agreed to repair the cabinets to avoid a complaint against its license. Mr. Brody testified that although he believed that Respondent did not install the grade of cabinets that it contracted to install, that was an issue between Respondent and him that did not involve Cabinets by Design. 56. Mr. Hutchings testified that he completed all required repairs on Mr. Brody’s project. 57. Inspector Gerold testified that he had not performed a prehearing inspection of Mr. Brody’s project. 58. Mr. Brody testified that Respondent did not perform any repairs to comply with the April 9, 2013 and April 29, 2013 Corrective Work Orders. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[27] 2. The Registrar bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.[28] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[29] 3. The Registrar may penalize a contractor’s license if he finds that the licensee “or any person listed on [the] license” has committed any conduct that constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).[30] Because Mr. Hutchings is listed on Respondent’s license, Respondent is responsible for his misconduct, even if Mr. Hutchings did not intend to involve Respondent in his contracting work for Mr. Wenner and Mr. Brody. 4. Respondent’s C-8 license does not allow it to subcontract to other properly licensed subcontractors contracting work that it could not itself perform under its License No. C-8.250945-R.[31] 5. The suspended status of Respondent’s license does not deprive the Registrar of its right to prosecute this complaint against Respondent or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Mr. Wenner’s and Mr. Brody’s complaints or the other statutory violations charged in the Citation and Complaint.[32] 6. The Registrar established that Respondent failed to perform any work on Mr. Wenner’s project after Mr. Wenner filed the Complaint with the Registrar on December 6, 2012, despite Mr. Hutchings’ promise that Respondent would complete the project after Mr. Wenner paid Respondent an additional $8,000.00 above the contract price. Because Respondent stopped working on the project before Mr. Wenner justifiably terminated Respondent’s contract, the Registrar established that Respondent abandoned Mr. Wenner’s project in violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(1).[33] 7. The Registrar established that Respondent failed to complete Mr. Wenner’s project for the price stated in the contract and any modification of the contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(9).[34] 8. The Registrar established that Mr. Hutchings falsely informed Mr. Wenner that Respondent was properly licensed to perform the extensive remodeling project at Mr. Wenner’s residence and that Mr. Wenner relied on the misrepresentation to his substantial injury in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7).[35] 9. The Registrar established that Respondent contracted beyond the scope of its C-8 license on Mr. Wenner’s project and on Mr. Brody’s project in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17).[36] 10. Respondent’s inability to legally perform or to hire others to perform the corrective work that the Corrective Work Orders required because its license was administratively suspended and such work was beyond the scope of its License No. C-8.250945-R does not provide valid justification for its failure to comply with the Corrective Work Orders. To comply with the Corrective Work Orders, Respondent could have paid Mr. Wenner and Mr. Brody enough monies to allow them to hire properly licensed contractors to perform the work that the Corrective Work Orders required, but Respondent failed to do so. 11. Therefore, the Registrar established that Respondent failed to comply with the February 11, 2013 Corrective Work Order in Case No. 2012-5581, the April 9, 2013 Corrective Work Order in Case No. 2013- 1047, or the April 29, 2013 Corrective Work Order in Case No. 2013- 1047 in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23).[37] 12. The Registrar established that Respondent performed work on Mr. Wenner’s project and on Mr. Brody’s project that did not comply with the Registrar’s or industry standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3),[38] namely A.A.C. R4-9-108.[39] 13. The Registrar established that Respondent contracted to perform Mr. Brody’s project while its license was suspended for non-renewal in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(18).[40] 14. The Registrar established that Respondent acted in the capacity of contractor under Mr. Hutchings’ name rather than the name on Respondent’s license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15).[41] 15. The Registrar established that Respondent did not include its license number preceded by the acronym ROC on the invoices that it presented to Mr. Wenner and to Mr. Brody in violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(13),[42] namely A.R.S. § 32-1124(B).[43] 16. The Registrar established that Respondent did not include its name, license number, an estimated date of completion, or the amount of progress payments, and did not advise Mr. Wenner and Mr. Brody of their right to file a complaint with the Registrar for Respondent’s violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) on the invoices that became the parties’ contracts in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(B).[44] 17. The Registrar established that Rodney L. Hutchings and Helen Elaine Hutchings were listed on License No. C-8.100591-R that was previously issued to Paradise Floor Coverings, Inc. and revoked. Because these same persons are listed on Respondent’s License No. C-8.250945-R, the Registrar established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(21).[45] RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent Brighton Floor Coverings, LLC’s License No. C-8.250945-R shall be immediately revoked. It is further recommended that Respondent be required to pay the sum of $1,500.00 as civil penalties for its three violations of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(23) pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(D). It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $1,000.00 as a civil penalty for its violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(18) pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E). It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalties on or before thirty days following the effective date of the final Order in this matter, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty. 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, October 28, 2013.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 2. [2] See A.A.C. R4-9-103.

[3] The Registrar’s webpage printout for Respondent’s License No. C- 8.250945-R was attached as Exhibit 2 to the Citation and Complaint. [4] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 1. [5] Paradise Floor Covering, Inc.’s license application was attached as Exhibit 8 to the Citation and Complaint. [6] The Registrar’s Decision and Order in Case No. 10-0819 was attached as Exhibit 9 to the Citation and Complaint. [7] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 3. [8] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 4. [9] See also the Registrar’s Exhibit 8 (Mr. Wenner’s April 16, 2013 letter). [10] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 5. [11] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 6 at 27-28. [12] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 7. [13] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 6 at 24-26. [14] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 9. [15] See Respondent’s Exhibit 11. [16] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 10. [17] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 11. [18] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 12. [19] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 13. [20] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 14. [21] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 15. [22] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 16. [23] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 17. [24] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 18. [25] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 19. [26] According to the Registrar’s public website, Quality Kitchen Inc. dba Cabinets by Design holds License No. C-30.182466-R. [27] See A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). [28] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [29] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [30] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (emphasis added). [31] Compare scope of C-8 license, set forth above at Finding of Fact No. 2, with scope of B- General Residential Contractor’s License, which allows the following scope of work: Construction of all or any part of a residential structure or appurtenance, except for electrical, plumbing, air conditioning systems, boilers, swimming pools, spas, and roofing (except shingles and shakes) which must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor. Also included are the scopes of work in B-3 and most of the C scopes except as restricted above. [32] See A.R.S. § 32-1154(C). That statute provides that “[t]he expiration, cancellation, suspension or revocation of a license . . . shall not deprive the registrar of jurisdiction to proceed with any investigation of or action or disciplinary proceeding against such license, or to render a decision suspending or revoking such a license . . . .” [33] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[a]bandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.” [34] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract.” [35] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[t]he doing of a fraudulent act by the licensee as a contractor resulting in another person being substantially injured.” [36] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, and other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[k]nowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.” [37] 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.” [38] 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.” [39] 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.” [40] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(18) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[c]ontracting or offering to contract or submitting a bid while the license is under suspension or while the license is on inactive status.” [41] 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.” [42] 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.” [43] 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.” [44] A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) provides that 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 after December 31, 2007 must be in writing and must include the following minimum terms: 1. The name of the contractor and the contractor’s business address and the 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 ten point bold type. . . . [45] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[h]aving a person named on the license who is named on any other license in this state or in another state which is under suspension or revocation unless the prior revocation was based solely on a violation of this paragraph.”

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

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