ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2017A-2623-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2017-11-20
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Andres Bustos,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Lariat Custom Homes LLC ,
License No: 271710
RESPONDENT.
No. 2017A-2623-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: September 28, 2017 and October 31, 2017.
APPEARANCES: Rita Bustos, Esq. appeared on behalf of Complainant Andres Bustos. Lori Guner, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent Lariat Custom Homes, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
1. On August 9, 2017, the Registrar of Contractors issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing at 8:30 a.m. on September 28, 2017 at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
2. On or about June 11, 2014, Complainant Andres Bustos (“Mr. Bustos or “Complainant”) entered into a home addition and remodeling contract with Respondent Lariat Custom Homes, LLC (“Lariat” or “Respondent”).
3. In December of 2014, Lariat began work on Complainant’s home.
4. On or about May 19, 2017, Mr. Bustos filed a Complaint against Respondent Lariat Custom Homes, LLC (“Lariat”) with the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) alleging poor workmanship on the part of Lariat.
5. On June 16, 2017, Investigator Matt Gunstra (“Investigator Gunstra”) conducted a job site inspection.
6. On June 21, 2017, Investigator Gunstra issued a Directive to Lariat. The June 21, 2017 Directive provides, in relevant part as follows:
You must provide the Registrar with satisfactory written proof of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on 7/7/17.
You are hereby directed to remedy the following violations by the approriate means:
Complaint Item 2: Roof removed, newly remodeled house NOT protected, excessive rain caused severe damage
Investigator’s Observation: Items damaged by water intrusion as a result of roof work performed by Respondent shall be corrected by appropriate means. This includes but is not limited to: water damage to kitchen cabinets, streaks and stains on garage concrete walls, ceiling drywall bubbles or stains, shower tile and grout deterioration,
Complaint Item 5: Other secondary damage to newly remodeled house due to rain damage caused by contractor neglect
Investigator’s Observation: See comments under complaint item #2
Complaint Item 8: Work not being done to workmanship standards, including, but not limited to –crooked/warped walls
Investigator’s Observation: Exterior stucco not sealed properly at AC line set. Exterior wall has missing concrete near patio fencing. Exterior wall at garage has streaks in stucco/paint. Secondary garage window has exposed nails in wood at opening.
Complaint Item 10: Electrical work not done to plans and/or workmanship standards
Investigator’s Observation: Several light switches are either not functioning or not controlling area lights. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means and electrical affected by his work.
Complaint Item 11: Plumbing work not done to plans and/or workmanship standards
Investigator’s Observation: Missing one sprinkler head. Master bath tub is not currently functioning.
Complaint Item 13: Drywall and paint not done to workmanship standards
Investigator’s Observation: Several areas with paint runs on the walls. Select areas with rough drywall not properly finished (example; ceiling light at wet bar). Lower level baseboard at air return is missing paint on end.
7. On July 14, 2017, Investigator Gunstra completed a Compliance Inspection. Investigator Gunstra concluded that Lariat had not corrected the items listed in the Directive.
8. On July 18, 2017, the Registrar issued a Citation alleging that Lariat may have violated A.A.C. Rule 4-9-108 and Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1154(A)(3) and (A)(22).
9. On September 27, 2017, Investigator Gunstra completed a prehearing inspection. Investigator Gunstra observed that Lariat corrected all of the items listed in June 21, 2017 Directive, with the exception of grout repair in Complainant’s guest bathroom.
10. Investigator Gunstra observed other items that he believed should be corrected but those items were not a part of the June 21, 2017 Directive.
11. At the hearing on September 28, 2017, the parties agreed to set the matter for a status update to allow Lariat to repair the grout in Complainant’s guest bathroom.
12. The parties informed the Tribunal on October 10, 2017 and October 12, 2017 that Lariat repaired the grout in Complainant’s guest bathroom and that Lariat had fully complied with the June 21, 2017 Directive.
13. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website on November 20, 2017. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 271710 was first issued on April 4, 2011, and is current. Such prior License record also reflects that there was one open complaint and no prior complaints against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-
1154(A).
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party
asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of
fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Lariat had not performed its work in professional manner at the time that the Directive was issued. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Lariat violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22) by failing to comply with the Registrar’s Directive by July 7, 2017.
5. The preponderance of the evidence also shows that Lariat has corrected all of the items listed in the June 21, 2017 Directive. Therefore, it is not appropriate in this case to impose discipline or a civil penalty.
RECOMMENDed order
In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that this matter 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 is forty days after the date of that certification.
Done this day, November 20, 2017.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham, Director
Registrar of Contractors