ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-909-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-06-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 17, 2016 held open until June 7, 2016 APPEARANCES: Richard Dean Mann, Complainant; Mark Hagarty, Respondent’s representative; Cliff Corlett, Registrar of Contractors Investigator; Sherrill Mann, Complainant’s wife; John Hagarty, observer ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________ After filing a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors, Complainant established that Respondent failed to bring the stucco around Complainant’s patio, the finish on the ceiling, the epoxy on Complainant’s garage floor, and debris from an attempted correction that stained the patio floor to within workmanship standards. Therefore, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for one day. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Complainant contracted with Respondent for the remodel of a patio and garage. 2. On March 4, 2015, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors. On March 25, 2015, a job site inspection resulted in a Directive from the Registrar being issued on April 15, 2015 ordering Respondent to correct 5 items from the complaint. The Registrar of Contractors also warned Respondent to comply with the minimum elements of a proper contract. 3. On May 7, 2015, both parties confirmed that the work was complete on the Directive and the Registrar of Contractors closed the complaint. However, on November 16, 2015, Complainant requested that the complaint be reopened. 4. A job site inspection on December 11, 2015 resulted in another Directive dated December 16, 2015. In it, the Registrar of Contractors Investigator ordered Respondent to repair a non-uniform ceiling repair that did not meet workmanship standards and to repair some epoxy flooring that had blistered. The Investigator also added two more issues; holes in the patio stucco and stucco debris on the patio floor. 5. When the stucco holes and epoxy flooring were not corrected, the matter came to hearing. At the hearing, Respondent argued that Complainant must have bumped the stucco when they installed a hot tub. Complainant denied the allegation and Respondent had no credible evidence that Complainant had damaged the stucco. Photos of the stucco in the file[1] show that, as Investigator Cliff Corlett testified, the stucco on the patio walls was non-uniform and should be redone. Photos submitted by Complainant show this as well.[2] They also show some debris from the attempted corrections that have stained the patio floor. This item was included in the second Directive and was not corrected. 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). 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 Directive from the Registrar without valid justification and within a reasonable period of time. 5. Respondent’s license is current with only one open complaint. 6. The greater weight of the evidence adduced at hearing established that Respondent did not bring the stucco around the patio, the drywall on the ceiling, the epoxy on the garage floor, or the staining on the patio floor to workmanship standards. RECOMMENDED DECISION Based on the foregoing considerations, it is hereby recommended that Respondent’s license (License No. B.270947-R) be suspended for one day.

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, June 20, 2016.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] See Prolaw entry “REQHRG.” [2] See Prolaw entry dated 6/3/16.

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

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