ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2016A-2219-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-10-26
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Rosemary Egurrola,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Home Lift Now LLC,
License No: 302446
RESPONDENT.
No. 2016A-2219-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 12, 2016 held open until October 18, 2016
APPEARANCES: Rosemary Egurrola, Complainant; Jack Grimm, Registrar of Contractors Investigator
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On April 12, 2016, Complainant hired Respondent to perform an extensive remodel of her home. On June 24, 2016, she filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors alleging workmanship issues and abandonment.
On July 18, 2016, a Registrar of Contractors Investigator, Jack Grimm, conducted an investigation and found several areas of poor or incomplete work. However, he did not issue a Directive from the Registrar. Respondent’s license had already been revoked. He noted that Complainant has had some of the work repaired by others.
The hearing was held open to allow Complainant to submit an itemized statement of the work that Respondent failed to complete and to note what items she has had repaired on her own. The statement was submitted on October 18, 2016 and states as follows:
Room of House/description of work that was to be done
Completed by Homelift YES/NO
Completed by Rosemary at her expense
Notes
KITCHEN
Granite counter tops
No
Yes
Remove Soffet drywall/texture
Yes
4 inch baseboards
New light fixtures
No
Yes
Remove popcorn ceilings
No
Yes
All new lighting
No
Yes
Install island
Yes
Install butcher counter
Yes
Install new stainless sink
No
Yes
Install new faucettes
No
Yes
Paint
No
Yes
Fireplace reface with stack stone
No
Yes
FAMILY ROOM
Remove popcorn ceiling
No
Yes
Install light fixtures/fan
No
Yes
4 inch baseboards
Yes
Remove load bearing wall
Yes
Remove soffit/raise ceiling
Yes
Yes
Drywall plaster
No
Yes
Install canned Lighting
No
Yes
Add electrical receptacle
No
Yes
Add Ceiling fans
No
Yes
Paint walls
No
Yes
DINNING ROOM
Square arches 2 walls
Yes
4 inch baseboards
No
Yes
Plaster
No
Yes
Paint
No
Yes
POWDER ROOM
Install New cabinet
Yes
New toilet
Yes
Granite Counters
No
Yes
Lighting
No
Yes
Sink
No
Yes
Hardware for cabinets and towels
Faucets
No
Yes
Deco strip
Yes
Paint/texture
No
Yes
LIVING ROOM
Remove popcorn ceilings
No
Yes
Install entry way lighting
No
Yes
Install ceiling fan
No
Yes
4 inch baseboards
No
Yes
Paint
No
Yes
STAIRS
New bannister/Iron rails
No
Yes
New wood treads
No
Yes
FULL GUEST BATHROOM
New granite counter
No
Yes
New Cabinet 60inch
Yes
New toilet
Yes
4 inch baseboards
Yes
Yes-Partial done
Double sinks
No
Yes
Lighting
No
Yes
Faucets/for sinks and tub
No
Yes
New tub
Yes
Yes
Tile surround/deco strip
Yes
Yes
Hardware for cabinet and towels
BED ROOM 1
Fan
No
Paint
No
4 inch baseboards
No
Yes
Removal of popcorn ceiling
No
BED ROOM 2
Add wall
Yes
Paint
Yes
Yes-Repainted done poorly
New Ceiling fan
No
Yes
4 inch Baseboards
Yes
Yes-Not done on new wall
BED ROOM 3
Ceiling fan
No
Yes
4 inch baseboards
Yes
Paint
Yes
Yes-redone poor work
MASTER BEDROOM
Remove popcorn ceiling
No
Yes
4 inch baseboard
Yes
Paint
No
Yes
Ceiling fan
No
Yes
MASTER BATH
New Shower
No
Yes
4 inch baseboards
No
Yes
Floor to ceiling glass shower door
No
Yes
Double sinks
No
Yes
Paint
No
Yes
New Cabinet 60 inch
No
Yes
Granite counter
No
Yes
New toilet
No
Yes
Free standing bathtub
No
Yes
Tile surround-shower
No
Yes
Tile surround-tub
No
Yes
Deco strip/shower & tub
No
Yes
New mirrors
No
Yes
Faucets
No
Yes
Hardware for towels
No
Yes
Lighting
No
Yes
Canned lighting
No
Yes
New receptacle plug
No
Yes
HALLWAYS/LANDING
4 Inch baseboards
Yes
Yes-Partial done
Paint
No
Yes
New lighting-Canned lighting
Yes
Yes-Partial done
According to the Registrar of Contractors website, Respondent’s license has been revoked several times, it has 4 open complaints against it and 11 complaints that resulted in disciplinary action.
The Registrar of Contractors Investigator also testified that he found evidence that Respondent had performed plumbing work without a permit and electrical work done without a permit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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.
The Citation issued by the Registrar of Contractors in this matter alleged potential violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), (2), (3) (specifically A.A.C. R4-9-108), and (16).
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for abandonment of a project without a valid legal justification. The evidence in this matter established that Respondent abandoned his contract with Complainant. No justification was offered for the abandonment because Respondent failed to appear at the hearing and offer evidence.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for departure from or disregard of plans or specifications or building codes without consent of the owner or his or her representative. The evidence at hearing established that a vanity was placed incorrectly, indicating that the plans were not followed. There being no evidence to the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence established a violation.
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”. One such rule in the Arizona Administrative Code requires contractors to meet minimum workmanship standards in the projects they undertake. A.A.C. R4-9-108. The evidence at hearing established a violation.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license. While it appeared some work was done without a proper license, there was insufficient evidence to establish a violation of this portion of the statute.
Considering the extent of unfinished work in this matter and the fact that Complainant has established numerous violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), (2), and (3), along with Respondent’s history of several revocations, it must be recommended that Respondent’s license be revoked in response to the Complainant’s complaint.
RECOMMENDED DECISION
Based on the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby recommends that Respondent’s license (License No: 302446) be revoked.
If the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certifies this Administrative Law Judge Decision, the effective date of the order will be forty (40) days from the date of certification.
Done this day, October 26, 2016.
/s/ Dorinda M. Lang
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham, Director
Registrar of Contractors