ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2016A-1269-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-08-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 28, 2016 APPEARANCES: Isaac Koole and Deborah Koole (Complainant) appeared on their own behalf. S R J Development, LLC (Respondent) was represented by its owner, qualifying party and authorized Representative, David Lloyd. Respondent also brought a witness, Scott Jun. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Amy Foster _____________________________________________________________________

Hearing was convened to determine whether Respondent violated state law as alleged by Complainant and as cited by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). Evidence and testimony were presented, and based on the entire record; the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Complainant is the owner of a rental residence located at 2083 East Ellis Drive, Tempe, AZ 85282. 2. Respondent holds Arizona Contractor’s License No. 264168. 3. On April 18, 2016, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that they had signed a contract with Respondent for $71,013. By the time the work was completed, the final amount was $145,604.24. 4. The original contract was to “Remodel the Existing Residence to include an addition of a Master Closet of approximately 52 sf, rework Master Bath to create a stall shower in the place of old tub and New Kitchen per…Floor Plan. Existing HVAC system to be reworked to extend duct work to new Kitchen, Great Room, Living Room and Foyer…The Great Room & Living Room to have popcorn ceilings scraped and refinished.” 5. Respondent understood that Complainant was going to do tear down some walls and ceilings before the construction. Because of the demolition, there was additional damage to the structural integrity of the home and electric wiring had to be redone throughout much of the home. There was also miscommunication regarding the work that was to be done on the bathrooms in the home. Complainant believed that both bathrooms were going to be remodeled so additional work needed to be performed. An arcadia door also had to be moved due to structural damage and involved tearing out a back wall. 6. Once work began, Complainant requested two block pillars be put in outside the house, they requested the bathroom wall be moved twelve inches, and stucco work was done on the outside of the house. 7. After the initial contract, Complainant never received a change order for any of the additional changes done to the home. They were discussed and at one point a new budget was given to Complainant. However, nothing was ever signed by Complainant. The new budget was dated September 29, 2015 and had an additional $76,119.53 in items to be completed in order to finish the project. Complainant was there at the meeting to discuss the new budget. 8. Both Respondent and Complainant testified that when additional work was discussed, Respondent would give a vague answer as to what it would cost but no change order was ever given. 9. Complainant agrees that there are no workmanship issues with the house. Everything has been done well and they have no complaints about the quality of the work.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1101, et seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154. 2. To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990). 3. Undisputed credible testimony established Respondent failed in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract. Thus, Complainant established Respondent failed to complete change orders for the work that was done of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8). 4. An A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) violation is warranted given that Respondent did not complete change orders giving any of the information required in a contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend SRJ Development LLC.’s License No. 264168 for a period of one (1) 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 40 days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, August 17, 2016.

/s/ Amy Foster 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