ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2014A-3915-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2015-12-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 4, 2015 APPEARANCES: Elisa Garrett, Complainant; Danny and Larry Prielipp, Respondent’s representatives; Dave Bowlin, witness; Cliff Corlett, Registrar’s Inspector ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________ Having heard and considered the evidence in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds that Respondent is responsible for some violations concerning the stucco, but because the work was completed in May 2014, it is recommended that no disciplinary action be imposed and that Respondent be ordered to clean, patch and correct the stucco as part of the warranty. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On September 30, 2014, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors regarding work done by Respondent on Complainant’s home. 2. On December 18, 2014, Inspector Cliff Corlett conducted a job site inspection. On January 19, 2015, Inspector Corlett issued a written directive instructing Respondent to repair the failing stucco. Regarding Complainant’s complaint that the air conditioner wasn’t cooling the home evenly, no directive was made because it couldn’t be tested in the winter, but Respondent agreed to test it in the summer. Regarding Complainant’s complaint about the screened in porch, no action was required. Respondent had agreed to install some kind of base board if Complainant supplied the materials, but no materials were supplied. 3. On March 4, 2015, Inspector Corlett conducted a compliance inspection and found that Respondent had attempted to correct the stucco, but he also found that the repairs did not meet workmanship standards in some areas. 4. Complainant offered photos into evidence that showed more recent cracking in the stucco. Complainant also argued that Respondent should not have installed a Jamaica wrap with a tar shingle roof because rains have caused stain to run down the sides of the home. 5. Danny Prielipp testified that he would like to correct the stucco. He said after the corrective work was done, he was not aware of a problem until the compliance inspection. He agreed that the patches are noticeable. As for the other items, he said, Complainant did not provide the materials for the baseboards and no one contacted him in the summer to come check the air conditioner. 6. Complainant testified that she has rented out the home and did not pursue the porch or the air conditioning issues. Complainant did not offer further evidence on the items that were not in the written directive. 7. The complaint states that the work was completed on May 23, 2014. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Contractors pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1104(A)(4), 32-1154(B) and 32-1156. 2. The Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors in this matter alleged potential violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and (22) and A.A.C. R4-9-108. 3. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar”. The Arizona Administrative Code requires contractors to meet minimum workmanship standards in the projects they undertake. A.A.C. R4-9-108. 4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for failure to take appropriate corrective action on a Corrective Work Order without valid justification and within a reasonable period of time. 5. The Registrar of Contractors may consider the prior record of a contractor in any disciplinary proceeding. A.A.C. R4-9-117. On standing motion by the Registrar of Contractors, the computer records of the Registrar of Contractors may properly be considered to be evidence in the event the Administrative Law Judge finds a violation of any of the statutory provisions cited in the Citation and Complaint. As of the time of this decision, Respondent’s license is in good standing. 6. In this case, the Complainants have established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and (22) because the stucco needed correction and the patches did not meet workmanship standards. It was not established that Respondent committed a violation by installing a Jamaica wrap. 7. Because the work was completed less than two years ago, the stucco is still under the Registrar’s warranty. Therefore, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to clean off the stains, repair all cracks and correct the patches as part of the warranty. RECOMMENDED DECISION Based on the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge recommends that Respondent be ordered to clean the roof staining, repair all cracks and correct the patches made as part of the two year warranty. Done this day, December 18, 2015.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

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