ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-3607-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-02-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 2, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. APPEARANCES: Stephen C. Earl (hereinafter “Complainant”) was represented by his attorney, Martin A. Aronson, Esq. Earth Stone Water LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”) failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas _____________________________________________________________________

After filing a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors, Complainant established a violation by Respondent that, in combination with Respondent’s license history, merits revocation of Respondent’s licenses. Therefore, it is recommended that Respondent’s licenses by revoked. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Complainant contracted with Respondent for the construction of a large project on his rear yard. Respondent took money from Complainant but did not complete the work and abandoned the construction project leaving the Complainant with an incomplete construction project in his rear yard. 2. Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors on August, 21, 2015. 3. The matter was set for hearing at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, but Respondent did not appear. Complainant testified that he had paid Respondent $45,000.00 for what was supposed to be a $50,000.00 construction. Complainant stated that the construction project was no more than twenty percent complete when the Respondent abandoned the construction project. Complainant said that he demanded his money back but that none of the money was returned by Respondent. 4. Complainant’s Complaint and supplements provide dates and details about Respondent’s failure to timely begin the project and its failure to complete the construction project. 5. Complainant’s testimony is found to be credible. 6. Complainant’s son, Cameron Earl (hereinafter “Mr. Earl”) testified that he signed the contract with Respondent on behalf of the Complainant. Mr. Earl testified that he repeatedly contacted the Respondent and that the Respondent continued to promise to return to Complainant’s residence and complete the construction project. Mr. Earl said that Respondent always failed to comply with its repeated agreements to complete the construction project. 7. Mr. Earl’s testimony is found to be credible. 8. The assigned Registrar Investigator, Matt Gunstra (hereinafter “Investigator Gunstra”) testified that he conducted at onsite inspection at Complainant’s residence on September 1, 2015, and verified that the construction project was incomplete. Investigator Gunstra stated that May 1, 2015, was the last date that Respondent had performed any work at Complainant’s residence. Investigator Gunstra opined that Respondent had abandoned the construction project. 9. Investigator Gunstra’s testimony is found to be credible. 10. The Registrar of Contractors identified one issue for hearing, abandonment. 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)(1). 3. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for abandoning a project he or she has undertaken. 4. The Registrar of Contractors may consider the prior record of a contractor in any disciplinary proceeding.[1] 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. As of the date of this recommendation, the Registrar of Contractors website listed two licenses for Respondent, License # 265235, a CR-21 classification, and License # 279568, a KA-5 classification. Both are listed as revoked. 5. In this case, the Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) when it agreed to perform a contract with Complainant and failed to complete the work. This Tribunal concludes that the violation of A.R.S. § 1154(A)(1), in combination with Respondent’s license history, merits the revocation of Respondent’s licenses. RECOMMENDED DECISION Based on the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby recommends that Respondent’s licenses be revoked on the effective date of the final decision in this matter. If the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certifies this Administrative Law Judge Decision, the effective date of the order will be the date of certification.

Done this day, February 2, 2016.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors

----------------------- [1] A.A.C. R4-9-117

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

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