ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-1929-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-06-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 18 and June 7, 2016 APPEARANCES: On April 18, 2016, Jim Dimond, Registrar of Contractors Investigator; Butch and Marlee Vanderbeck, Complainants; Jeremy Hahn, Wes Hahn, and Robin Petrilli for Respondent. On June 7, 2016, Butch and Marlee Vanderbeck, Complainants; Jeremy Hahn, Wes Hahn, and Robin Petrilli for Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________ After filing a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors, Complainants have failed to establish with sufficient credible evidence that their roof is leaking. Because they could not establish that the roof is leaking, they have failed to establish that Respondent is liable for any violation of the Arizona contractors’ statutes, and the complaint and citation should be dismissed in their entirety. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Complainants were the owner/builders of their home. They hired Respondent to install the roof on the home. When the roof leaked, Complainants called Respondent, who sent someone to test the roof by spraying water on it (“water testing”). After 5 minutes of water testing, Respondent found the leak. Respondent repaired the leak and the damaged drywall. 2. Complainants called Respondent again to say there was a leak. There was some moisture damage in the home, but after a 4 hour water test did not reveal any leak in the roof, it was not established that the roof was causing the problem. 3. Complainants filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors and pursued the matter to hearing, but they could offer no evidence that the moisture damage in the home comes from the roof. 4. Respondents, on the other hand, offered condensation as a possible cause. Although Complainants disputed that condensation caused the moisture damage in the home, they offered insufficient evidence to establish that the roof was leaking. Although they argued that the problem arises from a design flaw in the home, they were responsible as the owner/builders for all decisions made in the design of the home. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This hearing was conducted in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 41-1092.01 et seq. Complainants have the burden of proof and the standard of proof on all issues is by a preponderance of the evidence. See Arizona Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) R2-19-119. 2. In this case, Complainants filed a complaint on the basis of their theory that the roof was leaking. However, they failed to offer any convincing evidence that the roof is actually leaking. Respondent water tested the roof for 4 hours and no roof leak came to light. Complainants were unable to establish any reasonable, logical basis for finding that the roof is leaking despite the results of the water test. 3. Because Complainants have failed to establish the basis of their complaint, they were unable to establish that Respondent is liable for any violation of the Arizona contractors’ statutes, and their complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED DECISION Based on the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby recommends that the complaint and the citation in this matter be dismissed.

Done this day, June 7, 2016.

/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