ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2016A-456-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-08-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 12, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: Caroline C. Trotter (“Complainant”) appeared on her own behalf; Bella Arte Builders, LLC (“Respondent”) was represented by Jay R. Graif, Esq., Graif, Barrett & Matura, P.C. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure 1. On or about June 4, 2008, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) issued License No. B.245586-R for general residential contracting to Respondent. 2. On or about September 9, 2015, Respondent entered into a Proposal with Complainant as the Power-of-Attorney for her mother for the renovation of Complainant’s mother’s home at 18018 N. 132nd Ave., Sun City West, Arizona 85375. The project was to be funded through the SAH program with the Veteran’s Administration (“VA”). Complainant’s mother was the eligible veteran. 3. On or about February 8, 2016, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar, alleging that Respondent had committed numerous acts of misconduct while performing its contract to remodel Complainant’s mother’s home. Complainant later amended her complaint to allege 73 specific workmanship and other deficiencies. 4. The Registrar assigned the complaint to its Investigator, Jim Dimond (“Investigator Dimond”). On February 17, 2016, Investigator Dimond performed a jobsite inspection, which both parties attended. On April 14, 2016, Investigator Dimond on behalf of the Registrar issued a Directive that required Respondent to correct by appropriate means eight of the 73 alleged deficiencies on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 2016, in relevant part as follows: Please refer to the corresponding numbered item on the attached list for the complaint allegation

Item 3- The patio framing is not framed in accordance with the plans or the contract. There is no executed change order to authorize the change.

The respondent is to resolve this condition in an appropriate manner.

Item 12- This is the eaves that were cut to allow for installation of the cover. The trim work has not been completed.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Item 17- Concrete has been splattered on the siding.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Item 18- The tack strip and baseboard removal are contracted work but only partially completed.

The respondent is to remove all remaining tack strip and base board in an appropriate manner.

Item 20- The plans call for venting in every other joist bay. Venting is installed in every bay at both ends of the cover. No change order is present.

The respondent is to resolve this condition in an appropriate manner.

Item 44- The respondent at the ROC inspection agreed to have the drapes professionally cleaned.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Item 45- At the southwest corner of the front yard there is about a 10 sq. ft. area along with a tree well is discolored by concrete washout.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner. If the small quantity of rock is replaced, the color should be reasonably close to the color of the existing.

Item 47- There is evidence of window leakage that needs corrected. Additionally, the trim that was not changed out with the installation of the master bedroom and front southeast bedroom is poorly fitting.

Maricopa [C]ounty has also indicated that the window replacement has not been inspected by the [Authority Having Jurisdiction (“AHJ”)] and as a condition of permitting, must be approved by the county.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

The Registrar has determined that any workmanship violations alleged in the complaint but not listed above are unsubstantiated and do not require corrective action.

5. On April 25, 2016, Investigator Dimond amended the April 14, 2016 Directive to require Respondent on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 16, 2016, to correct “Item 18- The completion of the removal of the carpet tack strip and baseboard is to include the removal of any remaining flooring in an appropriate manner.” 6. On May 9, 2016, Investigator Dimond performed a compliance inspection. Investigator Dimond issued a Compliance Inspection Report in which he summarized the bases for his findings, as follows: Item 3 is not compliant but has [extenuating] circumstances

Item 12- is not compliant

Item 17- is not compliant with [extenuating] circumstances

Item 18- is not compliant

Item 20- is not compliant (ties in with item 3)

Item 44- is compliant/Complainant's lack of cooperation constitutes denial of access.

Item 45- is compliant/Complainant actions constitutes a [denial] of access

Item 47- cannot be deemed compliant until the county signs off on the windows.

7. Complainant requested a hearing. On May 10, 2016, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license, charging cause to revoke, suspend, or otherwise discipline Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9- 108, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). 8. Respondent filed a timely written answer to the Citation, denying that it had violated any of the charged statutes and affirmatively alleging that Complainant had denied access for it to complete its work and that it would not be paid for its contracting work. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 9. An evidentiary hearing was held on August 12, 2016. Investigator Dimond testified. 10. Complainant testified on her own behalf and attempted to offer into evidence 33 exhibits, but the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not admit 13 exhibits because they related to the monetary damages that Complainant was seeking against Respondent.[1] Complainant elected not to offer one exhibit. Although the ALJ does not consider exhibits that were not admitted in this decision, all of Complainant’s exhibits are included in the record for the Registrar’s review if it wishes. 11. Respondent’s qualifying party/member, Steve Sidoti (“Mr. Sidoti”), testified on its behalf. Respondent submitted six exhibits, all of which were admitted. Hearing Evidence 12. According to the complaint that Complainant filed with the Registrar, Respondent had started work on its contract to remodel Complainant’s mother’s home on October 13, 2015, and had been paid a total of $14,597.00. 13. Complainant testified that her mother passed away on November 28, 2015. 14. Investigator Dimond testified that Complainant had filed a new complaint against Respondent, which the Registrar had designated as Case No. 2016-1865. Investigator Dimond testified that he performed the compliance inspection in this matter at the same time he performed the first jobsite inspection in Case No. 2016-1865. 15. Sometime in April or May 2016, the VA wrote an undated letter to Complainant, terminating the contract with Respondent, in relevant part as follows: The central issue in this case is a dispute between you and [Respondent]. The dispute involves dissatisfaction with SAH construction, work that remains unfinished, contractual disagreements, and disbursements of grant funds. The SAH [Chief and staff] have been in frequent contact with you and [Respondent] in an attempt to understand the many events that contributed to this dispute.

We regret that you were unable to resolve the disputes amicably, but . . . we are now prepared to advise all parties on how to proceed. Due to the sheer number of issues/ complaints, we will provide our guidance in sections, grouped by theme/topic.

Items requiring correction per the ROC Directive

You submitted your full list of complaints to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC), and they performed a review/ inspection of the project. In their directive, dated April 14, 2l016, they advised [Respondent] that eight (8) items required corrective action. Per that same directive, [Respondent] has until May 4, 2016, to complete the outlined corrections. You must allow [Respondent] to complete the outlined corrections. Once the ROC deems these complaints closed, VA will also consider them closed.

During our review, it came to our attention that you may have submitted additional complaints to the ROC. VA will not be involved with further ROC complaints, so please work with the ROC inspector and [Respondent], as necessary/required, until final resolution is reached. . . . .

Items related to the builder’s timeliness/pricing/overall professionalism:

We agree that there were some legitimate issues in this area. We will document the case-specific issues and place a letter of admonishment in the builder’s file. We will also perform a comprehensive review of [Respondent’s] other SAH projects to determine if any additional corrective actions/ training/sanctions are necessary. However, please note that you selected [Respondent] and signed a 3-bid waiver to that effect. Also, while VA requires an estimated completion date/ timeframe to be included in documentation, we look at it as just that – an estimate. Whether or not any delays rise to the level of breach of contract is a matter for the courts to decide.

Items related to financials/payments:

Your mother’s SAH grant was approved for $70,465 on September 25, 2015. A phase one payment of $14,597 was released to [Respondent] on December 23, 2015. There has been work completed in both phase one and phase two. However, in light of the disputes, we have assessed the disbursement schedule, the claimed receipts, and our other case records to determine if further payment is required. In summary, we authorize an additional $6,251 to be released to [Respondent]. Please consult the attached spreadsheet for details regarding how we arrived at that figure. Any further disputes/disagreements regarding moneys owed (to either party) must be addressed via private legal action.

Items related to disagreements/misunderstandings about what was required by the contract (all remaining complaints):

Once the aforementioned payment is made to [Respondent], the escrow agreement will be considered voided. Please note that VA severing the relationship between you and [Respondent] is in no way a statement regarding contract breach or other legal determination. Rather, it is simply a formal termination of the relationship between you and [Respondent] for SAH purposes. This will hopefully allow all parties to move forward in a productive manner.

We believe that the adjustments made to the payments (and the related information/documentation) will render many of the biggest disagreements moot, since we are not seeking full performance of the original contract. However, any specific disputes that remain must be addressed via private legal action.

After the aforementioned payment has been made to [Respondent], you will have $49,617 remaining to complete adaptations. Because you have been authorized to proceed as your own general contractor, you will be given the funds in advance in order to efficiently manage the project. . . . You will not be required to submit any construction documentation for approval; this dispute resolution has taken a considerable amount of time, and we want you to be able to proceed as quickly as possible. . . .[2]

16. Complainant testified that on May 20, 2016, she received a check from the VA in the amount of $49,617.00 to complete the project and that she cashed the check. 17. Mr. Sidoti testified that Respondent continues to do work with the VA to provide housing for disabled veterans, which he finds personally very fulfilling, even though he is not making a lot of money. Eight Items on the Directive 18. Investigator Dimond performed a prehearing jobsite inspection on August 11, 2016. He testified about the effect on his opinions of the additional information that he had obtained at the prehearing inspection and at the hearing, especially the VA’s letter terminating Respondent’s contract and recouping the cost of framing the patio. 19. Investigator Dimond testified that on August 11, 2016, the project had moved forward with other contractors. Patio Framing (Items 3, 12, and 20) 20. The plans for the patio required joists at 16” On Center (“OC”), vented bird block in every other bay, and a 24” overhang.[3] The parties’ contract required that “[a]ny changes to the original contract and/or plans must be approved by the VA prior to implementing the changes.”[4] 21. Respondent constructed the patio with joists 24” OC (Item 3), a 19” or 20” overhang (Item 12), and vented bird blocks in every bay (Item 20). 22. The spreadsheet that was attached to the VA’s letter terminating Respondent’s contract indicated that the amount due to Respondent for patio framing based on receipts was $3,400.00, but that the entire amount had been recouped and not paid to Respondent due to alleged deviations from the plan.[5] 23. Investigator Dimond testified that at the August 11, 2016 prehearing inspection, the eaves were unfinished and still required paint, fill, a drip edge, and other minor items. Investigator Dimond testified that repairs to the eaves would have been incidental to completion of the eaves. Investigator Dimond testified that because Complainant had received money from the VA to complete the eaves, the final trim work to the eaves had been removed from Respondent’s scope of work. Investigator Dimond opined that it would be unjust to require Respondent to correct work for which it would not be paid. 24. Mr. Sidoti testified that Respondent’s framing contractor, North Mountain Builders, had attempted to repair the eaves and had sent a picture of its repairs and stated that Complainant had accepted the repairs. 25. Respondent submitted the invoice of North Mountain Builders’ invoice dated December 23, 2015, in the amount of $3,400.00 for work done framing the patio.[6] As noted above, this was the amount that the VA recouped. According to the invoice, $764.00 would be due after the trim-out. 26. Mr. Sidoti testified that the trim for the patio was part of the second draw and that Respondent had not performed trim because the electrical still needed to be done. Mr. Sidoti explained that the trim was part of the work that the VA had paid Complainant $49,617.00 to complete after the VA terminated Respondent’s contract and recouped the charge for framing the patio.[7] 27. Complainant submitted receipts from Home Depot, which she testified were for framing supplies that Respondent used on the project.[8] Complainant argued that because she had reimbursed Respondent for the receipts, it had been paid for framing. 28. Investigator Dimond acknowledged that Complainant had requested an inspection from the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department, the AHJ for the project (“the county”), without informing Respondent, and that after the inspection, the county issued a correction notice to install bird block in every bay, rather than every other bay, as the plans required. Investigator Dimond testified that the county’s requirement took precedence over plans because a contractor’s failure to comply with the county’s requirements could result in a stop work order. 29. Investigator Dimond testified that Respondent had not obtained a signed change order from the VA. Investigator Dimond testified that the county’s subsequent approval of an amended set of plans would render moot the requirement of a change order because the Registrar will not tell contractors to ignore the AHJ’s requirements. 30. Mr. Sidoti testified that he first heard to the county’s requirement that bird blocks be installed in every bay when he received an email from Brandon McDonald at the VA, informing him that Complainant had called for the county to perform an inspection on February 19, 2016, and that the patio had failed inspection because bird blocks had been installed in every other bay, not every bay as the county required.[9] 31. Mr. Sidoti testified that he made load calculations, drew up new plans that showed bird blocks in every bay and the as-built 24” OC joints, and took everything down to the county. The county approved the amended plans.[10] Mr. Sidoti noted that the county previously had approved the plans for bird block in every other bay. 32. Mr. Sidoti testified that on March 24, 2016, the county re- inspected the patio and the patio passed the county’s inspection under the amended plan.[11] Mr. Sidoti testified that if Respondent had not done the work, the county would have red-tagged the project. 33. Mr. Sidoti testified that he had submitted a change order to the VA, but that the VA had not returned it. Mr. Sidoti testified that the VA usually defers to the AHJ because the AHJ’s requirements overrides the VA’s requirements. Mr. Sidoti acknowledged that he did not submit a change order to Complainant. 34. Investigator Dimond testified that the 24” OC joints were still overbuilt and exceeded code requirements for minimal dimensional elements. 35. Investigator Dimond testified that if he had known that the VA had terminated Respondent’s contract and recouped the charges for framing, he would not have issued a directive that required Respondent to repair or complete the patio because Respondent had not and would not be compensated for that work. Concrete Spattered on the Siding (Item 17) 36. Investigator Dimond testified that Complainant had accepted Respondent’s repair of the concrete spattered on the siding. Investigator Dimond testified that at the August 11, 2016 prehearing inspection, the area where concrete had been spattered had been removed and replaced by French doors. 37. Respondent submitted an email from James Nieman of Nieman Painting LLC, its painting subcontractor, stating that on May 18, 2016, Mr. Nieman had taken care of every little nick and scruff on the siding that Complainant pointed out and that she was satisfied with the repairs when Mr. Nieman left.[12] 38. Complainant did not present any additional evidence on her complaint concerning the concrete spattered on the siding. Lack of a Tack Strip and Baseboard Removal (Item 18) 39. Investigator Dimond testified that at the August 11, 2016 prehearing inspection, Complainant indicated that the lack of tack strip and baseboard removal was no longer an issue. 40. Complainant did not present any additional evidence on her complaint concerning the lack of a tack strip and baseboard removal. Cleaning or Replacing the Drapes (Item 44) 41. Mr. Sidoti testified that he took the drapes to be professionally dry-cleaned and was told that because the drapes were 15-20 years old and heavily sun-damaged, the normal cleaning process would shred the drapes. Mr. Sidoti testified that he took the drapes to Frieda Ross and found a good match and left $710.00 for Ms. Ross to make new drapes. 42. Complainant submitted an invoice from Rio Cleaners dated April 18, 2016, stating that the draperies could not be cleaned due to “water damage & white shine.”[13] Complainant testified that because the drapes matched a bedspread, the bedspread would also have to be replaced. Complainant submitted estimates ranging from $2,185.53 to $4,303.81 to replace the drapes and bedspread.[14] 43. Investigator Dimond testified that he deemed Respondent to have complied with its agreement at the May 9, 2016 compliance inspection to have the drapes professionally dry cleaned. Rock in Tree Well Discolored by Concrete Washout (Item 45) 44. Investigator Dimond testified that he was given a recording made by Respondent’s subcontractor, Superior Concrete, that indicated that when Superior Concrete asked Complainant to look at replacement rock to approve it, she refused. Investigator Dimond testified that in his opinion, Complainant had refused to provide access to repair this item. 45. Complainant submitted an unsigned proposal from Superior Concrete that provided in relevant part as follows: I, Caroline Trotter, agree to accept the aggregate (rock), which is being presented by Superior Concrete. This aggregate has been established, by the aggregate company, to be the best match, to the existing. This aggregate will be used to replace the small area, of aggregate measuring, no more than 10 sqft in the Southwest corner of the front yard.

In the event that I, Ms Caroline Trotter, do not accept this aggregate, for replacement, then I will accept the removal of said aggregate, in the area aforementioned, and agree that Superior Concrete may use existing aggregate, from the surrounding yard, to fill in the small area of no more than 10 sqft. . . . .

Upon signing this proposal, I, Caroline Trotter, am agreeing that this has appeased my complaint with the ROC, in regard to Superior Concrete.[15]

Complainant testified that she refused to sign the proposal to release Respondent from liability for the discolored rocks until Superior Concrete performed repairs. 46. Mr. Dimond testified that such releases are not unheard of, especially where the corrective work involves replacement of material that must match an existing color or style. Mr. Dimond testified that at the end of the recording, Superior Concrete offered to put down the new rock if Complainant verbally approved the color, but that she refused to look at the rock. Mr. Dimond testified that Complainant therefore refused access for Respondent’s subcontractor to repair the rock. / / / / / / / / Window Leakage and Missing Trim (Item 47) 47. Investigator Dimond testified that at the August 11, 2016 prehearing inspection, Complainant indicated that the window leakage and baseboard removal was no longer an issue. 48. Mr. Sidoti testified that because Investigator Dimond believed that the county needed to inspect the windows, he contacted William Haas, P.E., the county’s Inspections Manager. Mr. Sidoti testified that Mr. Haas sent him an email, which he forwarded to Complainant and to Investigator Dimond, stating that the county only inspects windows in new construction, not retrofits like the project at issue. 49. Complainant did not present any additional evidence on her complaint concerning window leakage and missing trim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Complainant’s complaints involving contracting law violations lie within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[16] 2. Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.[17] Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.[18] 3. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[19] 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.”[20] 4. Respondent built the patio joists 24” OC, rather than 16” OC as the plans required, and with bird block on every bay, rather than every other bay, as the plans required. Nonetheless, Complainant did not establish that Respondent departed from the plans, thereby furnishing cause to suspend or revoke Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(2),[21] because Respondent established that the plans were amended and that the county approved the project. 5. Respondent also failed to repair the overhang on the patio to make it 24” as required by the plans and the Registrar’s Directive. A.R.S. § 32-1101(3) provides that "[c]ontractor" is synonymous with the term "builder" and means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization, or a combination of any of them, that, for compensation,” undertakes construction. (Emphasis added.) Respondent established that it was not paid to frame the patio and that it will not be paid for completing the patio, including extending the overhang, and that Complainant has received money from the VA for this work. 6. Therefore, because Respondent did not engage in contracting as defined by statute when it framed the porch, Complainant did not establish that with respect to the 24” OC joists, bird blocks in every bay, or the 24” overhang, Respondent departed from plans in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), did not perform its work in a professional and workmanlike manner, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3),[22] namely A.A.C. R4-9-108,[23] or failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without legal justification, in violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(22).[24] 7. Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, or A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) with respect to the concrete that had been spattered on the siding, the lack of a track strip and baseboard removal, or the window leakage and missing trim. 8. Construction is not a perfect art and, generally, contractors must be afforded an opportunity to correct their work before their licenses are revoked or suspended as a result of the contractor’s poor work. A complainant’s unreasonable failure to provide access constitutes a legal justification for a contractor’s failure to perform repairs. Respondent established that because Complainant unreasonably refused to verbally accept the color of the gravel, she failed to allow access to Respondent’s subcontractor Superior Concrete to replace the discolored gravel in the tree well. Therefore, Complainant did not establish cause to suspend or revoke Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, or A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22), even though the gravel in the tree well has not been cleaned or replaced. 9. When Respondent learned that the drapes could not be cleaned, it made arrangements to replace the drapes. Complainant wants Respondent to pay more money to pay for new drapes and a matching bedspread. The legislature has not empowered either the Office of Administrative Hearings or the Registrar to adjudicate or award money damages.[25] Complainant’s refusal to accept Respondent’s tender of new drapes to satisfy its agreement at the initial jobsite inspection to have the drapes cleaned involves a monetary dispute, not a contracting law violation. Therefore, Complainant did not establish cause to suspend or revoke Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, or A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22), even though she is not satisfied with Respondent’s offer to replace the drapes. 10. As noted above, because the VA terminated Respondent’s contract, it can no longer perform contracting by completing or repairing the project. Complainant’s other complaints involve claims for monetary damages to compensate her for Respondent’s alleged poor work on the project or alleged collateral damage to personal property and fixtures. Because these claims are solely for monetary damages, they are beyond the jurisdiction of the Registrar. Complainant did not establish additional cause to suspend or revoke Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that on the effective date of the order in this matter, Complainant Caroline C. Trotter’s complaint in Case No. 2016-456 against Respondent Bella Arte Builder LLC’s License No. B.245586-R shall be dismissed. 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, August 18, 2016.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] See A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), which includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[a]bandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.” [2] Complainant’s Exhibit 32. [3] See Complainant’s Exhibit 31 at 1. [4] Id. at 5. [5] See Complainant’s Exhibit 32 at 4. [6] See Respondent’s Exhibit F at 2. [7] See Complainant’s Exhibit 31 at 12. [8] See Complainant’s Exhibit 14 at 6. [9] See Respondent’s Exhibit F at 3-4. [10] See Respondent’s Exhibit E. [11] See Respondent’s Exhibit F at 16. [12] See Respondent’s Exhibit C at 1. [13] Complainant’s Exhibit 23 at 11. [14] See id. at 3-6. [15] Complainant’s Exhibit 24 at 5. [16] See A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). [17] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [18] See A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2). [19] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [20] Black’s Law Dictionary at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999). [21] 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.” [22] 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.” [23] 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.” [24] 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.” [25] See J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors, 142 Ariz. 400, 406, 690 P.2d 119, 125 (Ct. App. 1984).

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

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