ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2014A-857-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2015-04-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 12, 2015, at 8:00 a.m. and February 27, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.; the record was held open until April 6, 2015, to allow S W Paving and Seal Coating, LLC DBA: Native Horizon Grading & Paving (“Respondent”) to submit supplemental exhibits, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) to object to those exhibits, and both parties to file written closing arguments. APPEARANCES: The Registrar was represented by Seth T. Hargraves, Esq., Assistant Attorney General; Respondent was represented by Thomas S. Moring, Esq., Pak & Moring, PLC. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure 1. On June 3, 2010, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) issued License No. K-69.265253-D to Respondent. Aaron Joseph Cooper (“Mr. Cooper”) is listed as Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Member. 2. The Registrar on its own motion issued a Citation and Complaint against Respondent’s License No. K-69.265253-D, charging in ten counts various statutes as cause to discipline Respondent’s license, as follows: 1. Count One: Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3),[1] namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108,[2] in its performance of a contract with Kokopelli Holding, LLC (“Kokopelli”) to mill, repave, and seal coat a commercial parking lot in Prescott, Arizona. 2. Count Two: Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12))[3] by not including in its contract with Kokopelli all of the elements that A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) requires.[4] 3. Count Three: Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12)) by not including its license number preceded by the acronym, “ROC,” on the business card that was given to Kokopelli’s managing member, Michael Ham, MD (“Dr. Ham”), as A.R.S. § 32-1124(B)[5] requires. 4. Count Four: Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(14))[6] by contracting with Kokopelli under the name, S W Paving & Seal Coating, instead of the name on its license, S W Paving and Seal Coating, LLC DBA: Native Horizon Grading & Paving. 5. Count Five: Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22))[7] by failing to comply with the directive that the Registrar issued in Kokopelli’s complaint. 6. Count Six: Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108, in its performance of a contract with Michael R. Dean (“Mr. Dean”) to repave the asphalt driveway at Mr. Dean’s residence in Dewey, Arizona. 7. Count Seven: Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12)) by not including in its contract with Mr. Dean all of the elements that A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) requires. 8. Count Eight: Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(14)) by contracting with Mr. Dean under the name, S W Paving & Seal Coating, instead of the name on its license, S W Paving and Seal Coating, LLC DBA: Native Horizon Grading & Paving. 9. Count Nine: Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)) by failing to comply with the directive that the Registrar issued in Mr. Dean’s complaint. 10. Count Ten: Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(20))[8] because Mr. Cooper had been listed on License No. K-9.155049-D previously issued to Southwest Concrete Works, Inc. (“Southwest”) and the Registrar had revoked Southwest’s license after it found that Southwest had failed to pay a subcontractor and two suppliers, in violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(11).[9] 3. An evidentiary hearing was held on January 12, 2015, and February 27, 2015. The Registrar submitted fifteen exhibits and presented the testimony of three witnesses: (1) Dr. Ham; (2) Jim Dimond, the Registrar’s investigator who was assigned to investigate Kokopelli’s complaint after the original investigator who is assigned to the complaint, Cliff Frandsen, retired; and (3) Adam Stafford, who at that time was the Assistant Chief Counsel at the Registrar’s Legal Department. Respondent submitted six exhibits and presented Mr. Cooper’s testimony. Hearing Evidence Counts Six and Nine 4. At the beginning of the hearing, Respondent’s attorney admitted Count Six, the second charged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108, and acknowledged that Respondent had performed poor work in repaving Mr. Dean’s driveway. 5. At the beginning of the hearing, the Registrar’s attorney withdrew Count Nine, the second charged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)), because Respondent eventually had repaired Mr. Dean’s driveway to his satisfaction and the Registrar’s and industry standards. / / / / Counts Two, Three, and Seven 6. Mr. Cooper acknowledged that Respondent’s license number preceded by the acronym, ROC, was not on the business card that he gave to Dr. Ham. Respondent thereby admitted Count Three, that Respondent had violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12)) by not including its license number preceded by the acronym ROC on its business card, as A.R.S. § 32-1124(B) requires. Mr. Cooper testified that he had changed Respondent’s business cards to comply with statutory requirements. 7. Mr. Cooper also acknowledged that Respondent’s contracts with Kokopelli and Mr. Dean did not contain all of the elements that A.R.S. § 32-1158(B)[10] requires. Respondent thereby admitted Counts Two and Seven, that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(13) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12)) by not including in its contracts with Kokopelli and Mr. Dean all of the elements that A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) requires. Mr. Cooper testified that he had changed Respondent’s contract form to include all the terms that A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) requires. Counts Four and Eight 8. Mr. Cooper acknowledged that Respondent’s contracts with Kokopelli and Mr. Dean showed the name S W Paving & Seal Coating but did not include the designation LLC or the DBA Native Horizon Grading & Paving. 9. Respondent submitted a rider to its bond that showed that it had notified its insurance company that it was it was changing its business name from S W Paving and Seal Coating, LLC DBA: Native Horizon Grading & Paving to S W Paving & Seal Coating, LLC.[11] The rider was effective on February 26, 2015. 10. Mr. Cooper testified that he did not intend to mislead anyone by not including Respondent’s full name on the contracts. 11. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website, which shows that the name on Respondent’s license currently is S W Paving and Seal Coating, LLC. Count Ten 12. On May 11, 2000, the Registrar issued License No. K-9.155049-D to Southwest. The license lists Mr. Cooper as president and qualifying party. 13. On February 3, 2011, Mr. Cooper filed a Notice of Disassociation/ Resignation from Southwest. However, Mr. Cooper only checked the box for “I am disassociating as qualifying party ONLY,” not the box for “I am disassociating as qualifying party AND resigning as corporate officer/member/partner.”[12] 14. Mr. Cooper testified that he had owned Southwest with another person, but that his former partner had decided to go his own way and that the two are no longer on speaking terms. Mr. Cooper testified that he did not intend to keep any ownership interest in Southwest. He explained that because he knew that licensed contractors were required to have a qualifying party, he assumed that his resignation as qualifying party would lead to Southwest losing its license. 15. In 2011, The Alternative Edge, LLC, who had a subcontract with Southwest, and Brewer Cote of Arizona and SealMaster AZ, both of whom had supplied materials to Southwest, filed complaints with the Registrar for nonpayment. After Southwest failed to file timely written answers, the three complaints resulted in the Registrar suspending and then revoking Southwest’s contractor’s license.[13] 16. During and after the hearing, while the record was held open, Respondent submitted evidence that it had resolved the three nonpayment complaints against Southwest to The Alternative Edge, LLC’s, Brewer Cote of Arizona’s, and SealMaster AZ’s satisfaction. In the Registrar’s written closing argument, it acknowledged that it accepted Respondent’s evidence as resolving the complaints for nonpayment. Counts One and Five 17. On or about May 1, 2013, Dr. Ham on behalf of Kokopelli filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to adequately perform its contract to repair its commercial parking lot in certain respects.[14] 18. Dr. Ham acknowledged in the complaint that Kokopelli had paid Respondent only $9,416.60 of the $28,650.00 contract amount. Dr. Ham requested that the Registrar require Respondent to return all monies to Kokopelli. Dr. Ham also acknowledged that Respondent had last performed work on the project on September 23, 2012. 19. Kokopelli attached to its complaint a copy of Respondent’s contract dated May 24, 2012, to perform certain work, in relevant part as follows: 1. Mill entire asphalt parking area and driveways down 2½”. This does not include area around Coffee Depot.

2. Fine grade, water and compact millings. Grade to drain toward valley gutter.

3. Apply SSIH bonding tack to inside faces of concrete.

4. By machine, pave at a 2½” depth. Material used will be a ½” x 5.5% oil content, hot plant mix. Compact using a 4-6 ton steel wheel roller.

5. Seal major cracks ¼” wide and larger in area around Coffee Depot. By machine, apply two heavy coats of Sealmaster, asphalt preservative sealer. Application ratio is .25 of a gallon per sq. yd.[15]

20. The Registrar’s Investigator Frandsen performed a job site inspection on May 29, 2013, and on or about July 19, 2013, issued a directive to Respondent to correct by appropriate means the following deficiencies: (1) The asphalt was not milled to the proper depth; (2) The asphalt did not allow proper drainage; (3) Bonding tack oil was not applied to all required surfaces; (4) The asphalt was not applied to a consistent depth of 2½ inches; and (5) The cracks in the north parking lot were not properly sealed.[16] 21. After Investigator Frandsen retired, the Registrar’s Investigator Dimond took over the investigation into Kokopelli’s complaint. Investigator Dimond performed a prehearing jobsite inspection on September 23, 2014, and testified as to his observations of Respondent’s workmanship and repairs at that time. 22. Mr. Cooper testified that at the time of the hearing, Respondent’s dispute with Kokopelli was pending in court, that Respondent was seeking payment of the rest of the contract price, and that Kokopelli was seeking return of all monies paid or that Respondent be required to remove all the work that it had performed and install completely new asphalt. 23. Mr. Cooper testified that Respondent had done some work to comply with the Registrar’s directive. Mr. Cooper disputed that the depth of the finished asphalt did not comply with contract specifications or that the lot did not drain properly, but noted that even if there were problems in certain areas, Respondent could repair the problems by remilling and resurfacing limited areas. Mr. Cooper testified that Dr. Ham refused to allow access for limited repairs.[17] 24. Mr. Cooper noted that Kokopelli had been using the parking lot for nearly three years, even though no one else had worked on it. Mr. Cooper opined that the parking lot still looked good. Milled Depth of the Asphalt (Item No. 1 on the Registrar’s Directive) 25. Dr. Ham testified that after Respondent repaired the parking lot, the curbs were only 2” to 3” higher than the asphalt, whereas before the job, the curbs had been 4” to 5” higher than the asphalt. Dr. Ham testified that Respondent had barely scratched the surface of the parking lot, only milling it down one or two inches. 26. Dr. Ham testified that people can now drive right up to the building. Dr. Ham acknowledged that no motorists have driven up to Kokopelli’s office building in the nearly three years since Respondent repaired the lot and that Respondent had offered to erect a barrier between the parking lot and the building. 27. Investigator Dimond testified that there were several valve boxes in the parking lot where water to the building could be turned on or off and that these boxes were an inch below the grade of the asphalt. Investigator Dimond testified that if water drained into the valve boxes and froze, the valves could not be used to turn the water on or off. 28. Investigator Dimond acknowledged that he did not know whether the valve boxes had been abandoned or were still operational. Investigator Dimond testified that workmanship standards required Respondent to leave the valve boxes at the surface of the parking lot and that nothing indicated that the valve boxes could be paved over. 29. Dr. Ham obtained core samples of the parking lot. Dr. Ham testified that the depth of the core samples were uniformly less than 1¼”. But Dr. Ham acknowledged that some core samples were as thick as 2.399”. 30. Neither Investigator Frandsen nor Investigator Dimond took core samples of the depth of the existing and new asphalt at Kokopelli’s parking lot. Instead, they relied upon Dr. Ham’s statements and selected core samples. 31. Mr. Cooper testified that Respondent’s contract with Kokopelli did not require that it mill the existing asphalt down to the aggregate base coat, which would have been more expensive. Mr. Cooper testified that after Kokopelli filed the complaint, Respondent obtained its own core samples, which showed proper compaction and a total asphalt depth of 2½” to 3” over the parking lot. Mr. Cooper testified that the machine that was used to mill the existing asphalt had a depth gauge that measured the depth of the asphalt that was removed. Drainage (Item No. 2 on the Registrar’s Directive) 32. Dr. Ham testified that the size of the parking lot was approximately 18,600 square feet. Investigator Dimond used a 4’ level to check the slope of certain areas of Kokopelli’s parking lot that appeared to slope away from the gutter. 33. Neither Investigator Frandsen nor Investigator Dimond performed a water test. 34. Dr. Ham acknowledged that Kokopelli’s office building had never flooded and did not identify specific areas of the parking lot where water ponded after rain or snow. 35. Mr. Cooper testified that a water test is necessary to identify drainage problems because applicable standards define a drainage problem as water remaining on a surface after a certain amount of time. Slope and transient conditions without further analysis do not establish a drainage problem. In a parking lot that has thousands of square feet, use of a 4’ level alone does not establish a drainage problem because the slope may pick up a few feet away from a small problem area. Application of Bonding Tack Oil (Item No. 3 on the Registrar’s Directive) 36. Dr. Ham testified that he had taken core samples and dug into the asphalt and discovered that Respondent had failed to apply tack oil between the existing and new layers of asphalt. 37. Dr. Ham acknowledged that he had not been present when Respondent performed the contract or when it performed repairs. Dr. Ham testified that after the Registrar issued the July 19, 2013 directive, he saw black marks on the concrete curbs next to the asphalt that looked like someone had applied oil along the concrete next to the asphalt. 38. Mr. Cooper testified that Respondent applied tack oil between the concrete curbs and new asphalt. Mr. Cooper noted that the contract did not require tack oil between the milled existing asphalt and the new asphalt. Consistent Depth of 2½” of New Asphalt (Item No. 4 on the Registrar’s Directive) 39. Mr. Cooper testified that Respondent used 4½ tons of asphalt on the job, the amount required to apply a 2½” layer over the part of the 18,600 square foot parking lot that the contract required. The machine that laid the asphalt had a screed to ensure that the required depth was applied. Mr. Cooper pointed out that the contract required the asphalt to be 2½” thick before, not after compaction. Mr. Cooper testified that he had explained to Dr. Ham when the contract was signed that after compaction, the layer of asphalt would be less than 2½” thick. 40. Mr. Cooper testified that if the contract had required a finished depth of new asphalt of 2½” after compaction, the cost would have been greater because more asphalt would have been required. Mr. Cooper testified that Dr. Ham had wanted to save money on the cost of the parking lot repairs. Sealing of Cracks in North Parking Lot (Item No. 5 on the Registrar’s Directive) 41. Dr. Ham testified that on the day after Investigator Frandsen’s May 29, 2013 inspection, Respondent applied another coat of sealer to the cracks in the asphalt around the Coffee Depot. However, grass was now growing out of some of the cracks. 42. Investigator Dimond testified that areas of the asphalt were cracked near the Coffee Depot, which was about 25 yards from the main drive in the parking lot. As of the date of his September 23, 2014 prehearing jobsite inspection, grass was growing out of several of the cracks. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[18] 2. The Registrar bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.[19] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[20] A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”[21] 3. Mr. Cooper acknowledged that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, when it resurfaced Mr. Dean’s driveway; A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13)), namely A.R.S. § 32-1124(B) by not including its license number preceded by the acronym ROC on the business card that the gave to Dr. Ham and by not including the terms that A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) in its contracts with Kokopelli and Mr. Dean; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(14)) by not including the designation LLC or Respondent’s DBA at the time on its contracts with Mr. Dean and Kokopelli. The Registrar acknowledged that Respondent had performed appropriate corrective work on Mr. Dean’s job and Mr. Cooper’s credible testimony and other evidence established that Respondent appropriately has rectified its other acknowledged statutory violations. 4. The Registrar acknowledged that Mr. Cooper appropriately has resolved Southwest’s subcontractor’s and suppliers’ nonpayment complaints and that grounds no longer exist under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(20)) to discipline Respondent’s license. 5. With respect to Kokopelli’s complaint, the Registrar established by a preponderance of the evidence only that grass is growing from the major cracks near the Coffee Depot on Kokopelli’s parking lot. Although the contract only required Respondent to “apply two heavy coats of Sealmaster, asphalt preservative sealer” to the cracks, which Respondent may have done, and Respondent apparently applied an additional coat shortly after May 29, 2013, nearly two years before the hearing in this matter, contractors are required to warranty that their work will perform as intended for at least two years.[22] Therefore, the Registrar established Respondent’s additional violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, in its contract to repair Kokopelli’s parking lot. 6. Respondent established that Dr. Ham failed to provide reasonable access for repairs after the Registrar issued the July 19, 2013 directive by demanding that Respondent substantially remove and redo most of its work on the parking lot. Therefore, the Registrar did not establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) (now A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)). RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the order in this matter, License No. K-69.265253-D of Respondent S W Paving and Seal Coating, LLC DBA: Native Horizon Grading & Paving (now S W Paving and Seal Coating, LLC) shall be suspended for a period of one day. 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 five days from the date of that certification. Done this day, April 22, 2015.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] 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.” [2] 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.” [3] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) included 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. § 32-1154(A)(13) has been remembered as A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12). [4] 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. . . .

[5] 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.” [6] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15) included 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.” A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(15) has been remembered as A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(14). [7] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) included 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.” A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) has been remembered as A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). [8] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21) included 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.” A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(21) has been remembered as A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(20). [9] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(11) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure by a licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.” [10] 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. . . . [11] See Respondent’s Exhibit B. [12] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 9 at 6. [13] See the Registrar’s Exhibits 10, 11, and 12. [14] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 2. [15] The Registrar’s Exhibit 2 at 12. [16] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 4. [17] Dr. Ham stated in Complaint No. 6 of the narrative that Kokopelli filed with the Registrar that it had no complaint with Respondent’s striping of the parking lot but that “when the lot is properly milled and paved pursuant to the Contract, the striping will need to need to be redone.” The Registrar’s Exhibit 2 at 7. [18] See A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). [19] 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). [20] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [21] Black’s Law Dictionary at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999). [22] See A.R.S. § 32-1155(A).

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

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