ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-2339-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-07-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING DATES: April 22, 2016, and June 3, 2016; after Complainant failed to appear for the June 3, 2016 hearing, the Administrative Law Judge held the record open until June 27, 2016, to allow Complainant to make an offer of proof of the evidence that he would have submitted on the issue of whether he granted reasonable access that that could have changed this recommendation. APPEARANCES: Rene M. Detruit (“Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf on April 22, 2016, but failed to appear on June 3, 2016; Castle Rock Homes LLC dba, I C F Specialist (“Respondent”) was represented by Jason A. Clark, Esq., Lang & Klain, P.C. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure On or about November 15, 2004, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) issued License No. KB-1.201605-D for dual building contracting to Respondent. On or about June 1, 2015, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent that alleged 35 specific workmanship deficiencies in its construction of Complainant’s house at 2225 W. Sunrise Dr., Phoenix, Arizona 80451. The first complaint was that “[h]ouse has several leaks, water pours in through light fixtures.” The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jack Grimm (“Investigator Grimm”) for investigation. Investigator Grimm contacted both parties and conducted a jobsite inspection. On August 5, 2015, Investigator Grimm on behalf of the Registrar issued a Directive that required Respondent on or before September 11, 2015, to correct seven items, in relevant part as follows: 1. House has several leaks and water enters home in several locations. Stucco done incorrectly, this is why the house leaks. Per jobsite agreement the entire second story of the home will be made water tight with re-stucco and paint.

2. Mold in Walls. Correct by appropriate means, remediation may be required.

3. They have not repaired interior sheetrock, stucco, tile grout and paint. Repair all water damaged area at interior of home.

4. Mismatched stucco upstairs at exterior on insde (southside) of parapit wall that runs east to west in center of home. Per jobsite agreement this location will be re-stucco and painted.

5. When house was painted roof tiles were broken, paint on driveway, pavers and pony wall. Replace any broken, wrong color or painted roof tiles above patio. Remove small area of paint splatter on driveway at northwest corner of garage. Per jobsite agreement paint the top of the west side pony wall.

6. Closets in bedroom had to be reworked, doors did not fit and have water damage. Repair all water damaged closet doors and adjust. Correct door that drags on floor.

7. Roof has damage when painters repainted the house and paint overspray on white roof coating. Repair all damaged areas of the flat roof that have had a penetration in the membrane caused by workers and recoat repaired area. Correct areas of the roof that have overspray from the repaint.

On November 30, 2015, Investigator Grimm issued an Addendum to the August 5, 2015 Directive that required Respondent to perform the following additional repair on or before December 18, 2015: Stucco/waterproofing failure. Correct Stucco System on home and columns Per 2012 IRC R703.1.1 by appropriate means.

NOTE: This addendum is to bring more clarity to Item #1 on directive issued 9-11-2015. All other items listed on the previous directive still need to be addressed.

On December 24, 2015, Investigator Grimm performed a compliance inspection and determined that all seven repairs that the August 5, 2015 Directive required were incomplete. He sent the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. On February 12, 2016, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, and A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(22). Respondent’s member, Gary Fetters (“Mr. Fetters”), filed a timely written answer to the Citation, denying any statutory violation and affirmatively alleging that Complainant had insisted as a condition of allowing access for Respondent to comply with the Registrar’s Directive that Respondent re- stucco the entire house, which Mr. Fetters did not believe was necessary. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. A hearing was begun on April 22, 2016. Investigator Grimm testified. Complainant presented the testimonies of Dan Keen, the qualifying party/officer of Dan Keen Services Inc., License No. KB-2.149714-D (“Mr. Keen”), and his wife, Cheryl Detruit, and submitted seven exhibits, including numerous photographs. Respondent cross-examined Investigator Grimm and Mr. Keen and submitted eleven exhibits, for which Investigator Grimm established foundation. Because Respondent did not have time to present its case-in-chief, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) informed the parties that she would set a further hearing. Although the parties agreed to a date, after the ALJ consulted OAH staff, she was informed that another matter had been scheduled on that date. The ALJ issued an order setting a different further hearing date and time, which was transmitted to the parties. Due to Complainant’s failure to properly calendar the time of the rescheduled further hearing, only Respondent and its attorney appeared at 8:00 a.m., the time scheduled for the further hearing. Respondent presented Mr. Fetters’ testimony and submitted 13 additional exhibits. Complainant and his wife did not appear until 1:00 p.m., the time for the further hearing that was originally discussed, but on the new date set forth in the ALJ’s order setting the hearing date. Complainant filed a request that a further hearing be scheduled to allow him to present additional evidence. Initially, the ALJ set a second further hearing to allow Complainant to cross-examine Mr. Fetters and to present rebuttal testimony. Respondent filed a motion to for reconsideration and the ALJ allowed Complainant to respond to the motion for reconsideration. On June 27, 2016, the ALJ issued an order closing the record because on June 3, 2016, Respondent had submitted Complainant’s own emails to establish that he had not allowed Respondent unconditional and unrestricted access to perform repairs as it saw fit and Complainant had not submitted any evidence to controvert Respondent’s evidence. Because the monsoon had arrived, the ALJ indicated the substance of her intended recommendation and advised the parties that there might still be time for Complainant to provide unconditional and unrestricted access for Respondent to repair the leak. On July 7, 2016, personnel at the Registrar’s office forwarded to OAH an email chain between Complainant and Respondent that Complainant had forwarded to Investigator Grimm. Complainant at one time stated that he would allow Respondent to perform repairs if it agreed that Investigator Grimm could inspect and approve the repairs. Mr. Fetters on behalf of Respondent at one time stated that it would repair the leak if Complainant agreed to dismiss the complaint filed with the Registrar. Hearing Evidence Complainant’s house is constructed with an Insulated Concrete Form (“ICF”) building system. This is a construction system in which concrete is poured into foam blocks to construct the exterior walls. No evidence was submitted that the manufacturer of the ICF system required a water or vapor barrier. No evidence was submitted that the plans required a vapor barrier to be installed over the ICF system on Complainant’s house. Investigator Grimm testified that many of the items on Complainant’s complaint had been corrected before his first jobsite inspection. The main issue was that the stucco on the upper level leaked, which had resulted in mold and other collateral damage to the interior of the house. Investigator Grimm testified that the stucco was water resistant but could not drain. Investigator Grimm opined that the ICF system on the house violated IRC Code 703.1.1 because Respondent had not installed weepscreed at the base of columns and had not installed a vapor or water barrier over the ICF system. Respondent submitted the November 12, 2013 Certificate of Occupancy that showed that the house had passed all of the City of Phoenix’s building inspections, including of the ICF system.[1] Investigator Grimm acknowledged that the local building authority was responsible for enforcing code requirements and that Respondent had not been charged with a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2).[2] Respondent submitted a printout from the manufacturer’s website that stated that an ICF system does not require a vapor barrier. The excerpt quoted IRC Code 703.1.1, in relevant part as follows: The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed in a manner that prevents the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water-resistant barrier behind the exterior veneer . . . and a means of draining to the exterior water that enters the assembly. . . .[3]

The manufacturer’s website stated that an ICF system is an exception to IRC Code 703.1.1’s requirement because “[a] weather-resistant exterior wall envelope shall not be required over concrete or masonry walls designed in accordance with Chapter 6 and flashed according to Section R703.7 or R703.8.”[4] Mr. Fetters testified that Respondent specializes in construction of ICF building systems. He has taken 4 or 5 courses, some of which involved written examinations, and has received certifications in ICF construction. Respondent has built 200 to 300 structures using the ICF building system, approximately 75% of them homes, in Flagstaff, Tucson, and the Phoenix area. Mr. Fetters testified that although Respondent has never installed a vapor barrier as part of the ICF building system, none of the other structures that Respondent has built using the ICF building system have experienced leaks. Mr. Fetters testified that none of the buildings that Respondent constructed using the ICF building system, including Complainant’s house, ever failed a building inspection by the local government authority because it lacked a vapor barrier. Mr. Fetters testified that he disagreed with Investigator Grimm’s and Complainant’s opinion that a vapor barrier is necessary to prevent leaks in a structure constructed using the ICF building system. Mr. Fetters testified that the leak in the second story of Complainant’s house needed to be repaired before Respondent addressed the other six items on the August 5, 2015 Directive because all concerned the consequences of water intrusion. Mr. Fetters testified that on February 18, 2015, more than three months before Complainant filed the complaint with the Registrar, Respondent had obtained a mold report from Arizona’s Restoration Experts on the extent of the mold damage.[5] Mr. Fetters testified that Respondent obtained the report as soon as it learned of potential water intrusion. Mr. Fetters testified that Respondent paid $1,750.00 for the mold report and that although Respondent was going to perform mold remediation immediately, Complainant requested that Respondent delay repairs until he knew that the leak had been fixed. Mr. Fetters testified that after Respondent learned of the leak, it took multiple steps to attempt to repair the leak and that Respondent twice repaired interior damage caused by the leak. Mr. Fetters testified that Investigator Grimm and Complainant both instructed Respondent to delay further interior repairs until everyone was certain that the leak was fixed. Mr. Fetters testified that because Respondent thought water might be flowing through the air vents, it put covers on the vents, but that did not repair the leak. Respondent then applied epoxy to the second story because thought that water might be splashing up on the edge of the stucco, but that did not work. Respondent performed numerous water tests on the west and south sides of the house, but did not identify the leak. Respondent also hired a specialist to perform an infrared test of the house, which showed moisture in two can lights in the interior of the house, but not the source of the moisture.[6] Mr. Fetters testified that next, Respondent hired a subcontractor to apply waterproof Behr paint to the exterior walls of the second story, including the parapet walls, for $950.00.[7] Mr. Fetters testified that Complainant said that the waterproof Behr paint stopped 90% of the leaks. Mr. Fetters testified that Respondent next noted a negative slope to a window on the south side of the house. Although Respondent corrected the slope of the window, it did not resolve the leak. Mr. Fetters testified that after the August 5, 2015 Directive, Investigator Grimm ordered Respondent to perform another water test. Mr. Fetters testified that Respondent used a 2½” hose hooked up to a water hydrant and ran 15,000 gallons of water against the west wall of Complainant’s house, but did not discover any leak. On the next day, Respondent repeated the process on the south side and found a leak around a window. On or about October 21, 2015, Mr. Fetters sent a letter to the Registrar, informing it that Respondent had located the leak and that it was in the process of repairing the leak with new waterproofing and flashing.[8] Mr. Fetters testified that Respondent demoed the window and found that the membrane that the stucco subcontractor, Jim Wickham of Wickham Plastering (“Wickham” or “Jim”) had installed was failing.[9] Mr. Fetters testified that because Wickham did not immediately respond to Respondent’s concerns, Respondent filed a complaint against Wickham with the Registrar, which resulted in a one-day disciplinary suspension. Mr. Fetters testified that on October 27, 2015, he sent an email to Investigator Grimm, informing him that Respondent had sent a worker to set up the scaffolding to start removing some of the stucco and begin repairing the area around the window, but that Complainant had “drilled [the worker] a bunch of questions . . . about why isn’t the entire house being re- stucco[ed] . . . .”[10] Mr. Fetters testified that Complainant made clear that he wanted his whole house re-stuccoed and that he would not allow Respondent to perform any lesser or different repair. Mr. Fetters testified that if Respondent was required to install a vapor barrier over the ICF, it would have to completely re-stucco Complainant’s house. Investigator Grimm acknowledged at the hearing that the Registrar does not tell contractors how they should perform their corrective work. He also acknowledged that he does not have much experience in ICF building systems. Nonetheless, on November 12, 2015, Investigator Grimm informed Respondent that in his opinion, the cause of the leak was the lack of a vapor barrier, in relevant part as follows: The upper portion of this home has no vapor barrier and no weep screed at the walkout patio and roof line locations including the tile roof line areas. Most of the foam block manufacture[r]s state that a vapor barrier is not needed as the solid mass concrete poured between in the center of the foam block is enough. However the problem with water in this case is not the penetration of water through the concrete mass portion of the wall, but the leaking and damage that is caused on the outside of the. . . upstairs wall plane that is over livable, garage or porch areas. . . .[11]

Investigator Grimm concluded his email by quoting IRC 703.1.1 and its exception, but concluding that “the ICF poured concrete portion is considered a concrete wall mass, however the plane of the upper level wall mass continues through the roof lines with two inches of foam in front of that concrete that has unsealed joints. That portion of the wall assembly is not water proof.”[12] Mr. Fetters testified that on November 16, 2015, after Respondent demoed the south window, he sent another email to Investigator Grimm, sending pictures of the failed membrane around the window and opining that “I think the only way to correct his is to remove the stucco and water proof the ICF on the second story and re stucco.”[13] Mr. Fetters testified that Respondent was planning to remove 6” to 12” of stucco and reapply the waterproof membrane with metal 3” flashing at the bottom of the window. Mr. Fetters explained that he informed Investigator Grimm and Complainant of Respondent’s planned repairs because from the beginning of the project, Complainant insisted on approving everything that Respondent did. Mr. Fetters did not feel that Respondent could perform any corrective work without Complainant’s approval. Investigator Grimm also acknowledged that on November 16, 2015, Respondent demoed a window that it believed was the source of the leak and that Mr. Fetters had stated that he believed that the window was the source of the leak.[14] On November 25, 2015, Mr. Fetters informed Investigator Grimm that Respondent’s stucco subcontractor had agreed to apply a waterproof stucco over the top of the existing stucco on the south side of the house and to water proof the east window.[15] Mr. Fetters’ email indicated that Respondent would perform a water test and if Wickham’s repairs resolved the leak, perform interior repairs. Mr. Fetters testified that although Wickham is a licensed stucco contractor, at that point Investigator Grimm and Complainant insisted that Respondent remove all the stucco, install a vapor barrier over all of the ICF, and re-stucco the house.[16] Investigator Grimm acknowledged that on November 30, 2015, he sent an email to Respondent, stating that because the stucco system has no exit point for moisture and water, “[t]hat will mean to correct all areas regarding the stucco on this home that do not meet the code requirements that I informed you in an earlier email regarding 2012 IRC 703.1.1 Water Resistance. I believe this will be only solution for long term reliability.”[17] On December 16, 2015, Investigator Grimm informed Respondent that he had spoken to Complainant and that “I will not consider the work corrected until the whole house meets the stucco code or [Complainant] signs off on completion of some other system.”[18] On November 30, 2015, Investigator Grimm informed Respondent that “[i]t was made clear to me when I performed the inspection on the areas around the windows that this is much more than just leaking windows. The Stucco System in place does not meet the code requirements. This repair is going to take much more than just more water proofing on the exterior of the stucco.”[19] Mr. Fetters testified that on March 21, 2016, he attempted to schedule repairs to comply with the Directive and sent an email to Complainant proposing the following corrective actions: I would like to schedule in Simpson Roofing company for Monday March 28th to download the tile from the patio roof areas. That should take 2 to 3 days. He will be stacking these tiles on pallets for safety and protection.

Then following Simpson roofing, we have scheduled in [Wickham] to remove the stucco and expose the original water proofing membrane around the entire upper portion of the house. He will then remove this old membrane and discard. Wickham will need 2 days to remove and haul away the demo material.

He will then install new water proofing flashing system [.] [T]his process will take about 2 days.

At the same time, [Respondent] will be replacing the window along with flashing and water proofing that area.

Following an inspection, Wickham will then apply a new basecoat stucco around the window and around the [perimeter] of the upper portion. This will take about 2 to 3 days.

Then I will have David (contractor that did your garage) come and apply the Synthetic stucco to the entire upper portion of the house terminating at edges to match the existing stucco. This will include the pony wall headed west from the upper area as discussed. Estimated 3 to 4 days.

Next will be replacement of the roofing tile to include the mismatched and broken tiles. 3 days.

Once we have the flashing process completed and water proofing tested with water test[, w]e will also have Chris Wieselman handyman services taking care of any mold naturalizing and all interior repairs. This should [overlap] the time frame for the stucco and not cause any further delay.

The total time of the repair looks to be about 17 working days.[20]

On March 22, 2016, Complainant responded to Mr. Fetters’ email, informing him that the proposed repairs were not acceptable because the Registrar’s Directive said that “entire stucco system is of substandard work including the columns” and that “[t]he entire house will need to be done per the directive.”[21] Mr. Fetters testified that there was no need to replace all of the stucco on Complainant’s house and that overall, the stucco looked awesome. Respondent hired a third party, Detect It LLC, to evaluation the stucco. Detect It LLC’s report of its visual inspection did not note any significant deficiencies in the stucco application, although it did note “[c]oncrete pad for pool equipment is butted up against the weep screed at the bottom of the wall.”[22] On April 5, 2016, Mr. Fetters sent another email to Complainant, informing him and that even if the Registrar ultimately required the house to be re-stuccoed, he wanted to fix the leak because rain was expected that week.[23] Complainant responded, “[t]he window is not leaking” and “I know what the directive says is needed.”[24] Mr. Fetters testified that Complainant did not allow Respondent to perform any repairs. Complainant’s construction consultant, Mr. Keen, testified that the leaks in the house were caused by an inadequate stucco system over the ICF building system and that Respondent’s proposed repairs would not stop the leak. Mr. Keen acknowledged that he was not familiar with the ICF building system. He testified that he had researched the system before the hearing, but acknowledged that he did not have his research materials. Mr. Keen testified that although city inspectors try to make sure that things are done correctly on jobsites, their thoroughness depends on their mood. Mr. Keen testified that concrete joints in the ICF system were channeling the water. He felt that the stucco had been mixed hot and watered insufficiently, which did not allow it to cure. Mr. Keen testified that the existing stucco was not a good base for synthetic stucco because it had efflorescence. Mr. Keen testified that a new coat of stucco would not repair the leak. Mr. Fetters testified that he examined the columns at the house with a mirror and found an indentation to show the location of a J-weep that Respondent had installed. Mr. Fetters testified that Respondent had installed gravel around isolated pads that held the pool equipment, but that after the Certificate of Occupancy had been issued, Complainant had poured a large concrete pad around the pool equipment and had installed pavers over the patio, blocking the weepscreeds and preventing drainage.[25] Mr. Fetters testified that the east wall on the other side of the staircase leading from the patio area near Complainant’s alterations had the most mold. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[26] Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s contracting law violations by a preponderance of the evidence.[27] Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.[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] 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.”[30] Respondent acknowledged that the ICF building envelope on Complainant’s house leaked. Therefore, Complainant established potential cause to discipline Respondent’s contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3),[31] namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108.[32] However, construction is not a perfect science, and generally contractors should be afforded an opportunity to correct their workmanship before their licenses are disciplined. Complainant did not establish that Respondent failed to install weepscreeds to allow moisture to escape from behind the stucco. Respondent established that any inability of normal moisture behind the stucco was caused by Complainant’s installation of a large concrete pad for the pool equipment and pavers that obstructed the weepscreed that Respondent had installed. Respondent also established that at least until after the Administrative Law Judge’s June 27, 2016 order, Complainant refused to allow Respondent unrestricted access to perform repairs unless it agreed to install a vapor barrier over the entire exterior building envelope and re-stucco the entire house. Complainant did not establish that either the building plans, IRC R703.1.1, or the manufacturer of the ICF building system required this repair. Respondent is appropriately licensed and its license is in good standing. It has substantial expertise in construction using the ICF building system, which is a very specialized and arcane system. Respondent has established that Complainant refused to provide reasonable access for it to comply with the Registrar’s Directive, which is a valid legal justification for Respondent’s failure to comply with the Registrar’s Directive and prevents a finding of a violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(22).[33] Investigator Grimm’s interpretation of an ambiguous building code provision in a way that Respondent later showed was contrary to the ICF system’s manufacturer’s interpretation unfortunately encouraged Complainant’s refusal to provide unconditional, unrestricted access. At this stage of this administrative proceeding, given the state of the record, neither the Registrar’s investigator nor Complainant is entitled to dictate the manner of Respondent’s corrective action. It is not clear on this record whether Respondent’s proposed repair will resolve the leak because Complainant did not allow Respondent to perform the repair. Complainant cannot condition access on a specific investigator approving the repair and Respondent cannot condition repair on Complainant waiving his right to further relief in this forum. Given the investigator’s well-intentioned involvement and Complainant’s refusal to provide reasonable access for Respondent to comply with the Registrar’s Directive, however, Complainant should be allowed one final opportunity to provide unconditional and unrestricted access for Respondent to repair the leak. Throughout the course of this matter, the one thing that the parties have agreed upon is that there has been continuing objective evidence of a leak. Licensed contractors in Arizona are required to warranty their initial workmanship and subsequent repairs for two years after they perform the work.[34] If this objective evidence continues to manifest after Complainant has allowed Respondent unconditional and unrestricted access to perform repairs as it sees fit, Complainant’s remedy is to request a post- hearing compliance inspection. If Complainant chooses to continue to insist on a specific repair, his remedy is to file a civil action in a judicial forum to attempt to recover his damages and the Registrar may close this matter. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, the Registrar close Complainant Rene M. Detruit’s complaint in Case No. 2015-2339 against Respondent Castle Rock Homes, LLC DBA: I C F Specialist’s License No. KB-1.201605-D for denial of access, without prejudice to Complainant’s right to request that the Registrar reopen the complaint to allow Complainant one final chance to provide unconditional and unrestricted access to Respondent to perform the repairs at it sees fit. 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, July 14, 2016.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] See Respondent’s Exhibit 9. The permit for the construction of Complainant’s house specified that the 2006 IRC would govern construction of the house. See Respondent’s Exhibit 8. Neither party pointed out any material differences between 2012 IRC Code 703.1.1 that Investigator Grimm cited in the amended Directive and the 2006 IRC Code that the building permit specified. The 2012 provision that Investigator Grimm quoted in an email, see Respondent’s Exhibit 6 at 1-2, appeared to be identical to the provision quoted at the manufacturer’s website. [2] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[d]eparture from or disregard of plans or specifications or any building codes of any 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.” [3] Respondent’s Exhibit 7 at 1. [4] Id. at 2; see also Respondent’s Exhibit 6 (Investigator Grimm’s email quoting code and exceptions). [5] See Respondent’s Exhibit 24. [6] See Respondent’s Exhibit 25. [7] See Respondent’s Exhibit 26. [8] See Respondent’s Exhibit 28. [9] Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website, which shows that on or about November 20, 2001, the Registrar issued License No. CR36.170321-D for dual plastering to Surwick Inc. DBA: Wickham Plastering (“Wickham”), and the James Donovan Wickham is the qualifying party/officer on the license. The website shows one complaint that resulted in a finite disciplinary suspension of Wickham’s license on March 11, 2016. [10] Respondent’s Exhibit 45. [11] Respondent’s Exhibit 6 at 1. [12] Respondent’s Exhibit 6 at 2. [13] Respondent’s Exhibit 29. [14] See Respondent’s Exhibit 29. [15] See Respondent’s Exhibit 31. [16] See Respondent’s Exhibit 32 (Complainant’s 11/25/2015 email). [17] Respondent’s Exhibit 5 at 1. [18] Respondent’s Exhibit 5. [19] See Respondent’s Exhibit 30. [20] Respondent’s Exhibit 36 at 1. [21] Id. at 2. [22] Respondent’s Exhibit 40 at 5. [23] See Respondent’s Exhibit 42 at 2. [24] See id. [25] See Respondent’s Exhibits 19, 20 (photographs). [26] See 32-1101 et seq. [27] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [28] See A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2). [29] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [30] Black’s Law Dictionary at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999). [31] 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.” [32] 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.” [33] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) 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.” [34] See A.R.S. § 32-1155(A).

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

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