ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2017A-2936-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2018-01-08
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Christopher Louis Szuch,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Arizona Valley Home Builders LLC,
License No: 302555.
RESPONDENT.
No. 2017A-2936-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 18, 2017
APPEARANCES: Complainant Christopher Louis Szuch appeared on behalf of himself. Mark A. Hanson, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent Arizona Valley Home Builders, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On October 23, 2017, the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”)
issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on December 18, 2017, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
2. In January of 2016, the Registrar of Contractors issued a contractor’s license to Arizona Valley Homebuilders, LLC (“Arizona Valley”).
3. In or around the end of 2015, Lameco, LLC (“Lameco”) hired Landco Construction and Remodeling, LLC (“Landco”) to build a home located at 9023 S. Dean Road, Buckeye, AZ 85326 (“home”).
4. At all times relevant to this matter, Mike Ellis (“Mr. Ellis”) and Leonard Aguilar (“Mr. Aguilar”) were members of Lameco.
5. Mr. Aguilar owns Landco. Landco holds a class (B) General Residential Contractor’s license.
6. In December of 2015, Mr. Ellis became ill and suffered a heart attack.
Mr. Ellis was unable to work for approximately 6 months.
7. On or about October 17, 20117, Mr. Aguilar of Landco filed a permit application for construction in County Right-of-Way for the construction of the home. See Exhibit R3.
8. On December 5, 2015, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation approved the application. See id.
9. On February 25, 2016, Mr. Aguilar requested draws for plumbing, electrical, HVAC and Framing for the construction of the home.
10. In or about March of 2017, Complainant Christopher Louis Szuch purchased the home.
11. After purchasing the home, Mr. Szuch noticed several deficiencies.
12. On or about June 6, 2017, Mr. Szuch filed a Complaint with the Registrar alleging poor workmanship on the part of Lameco.
13. The Registrar subsequently assigned Investigator Russell Reed to the Complaint.
14. Lameco is a financial firm. The Complaint was re-filed against Arizona Valley, Mr. Elli’s construction company.
15. Investigator Reed conducted an investigation. During the investigation,
Mr. Ellis told Investigator Reed that Landco built the home. The Complaint was re-filed against Landco.
16. On or about August 9, 2017, Investigator Reed conducted an initial job site inspection. Mr. Szuch and Mr. Aguilar were present. See Exhibits C and D.
17. At the job site inspection, Mr. Aguilar admitted to pouring the concrete for the home, but denied building the home. See id.
18. At the job site inspection, Mr. Szuch told Investigator Reed that Mr. Ellis had been to the home to make repairs. As a result, Investigator Reed closed out the Complaint against Landco.
19. Investigator Reed concluded that Arizona Valley built the home.
20. On September 19, 2017, Investigator Reed conducted a second job site inspection.
21. Mr. Reed prepare job site inspection notes regarding several deficiencies. According to the notes, the sliding glass doors did not have screens and some of the screens on the bedroom windows were installed incorrectly.
22. On September 19, 2017, Investigator Reed issued a Directive against
Arizona Valley. The September 19, 2017 Directive provides, in relevant part, as follows:
After investigation, the Registrar has substantiated that your work fails to meet minimum workmanship standards (see A.A.C. R4-9-108). You are hereby directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Excessive hollow tiles throughout home and some tiles are chipped.
Grout is missing in areas throughout home.
Master shower does not properly drain toward the drain and is leaking into toilet room and out of shower.
Broken back splash tiles, excessive grout on back splash, missing tiles of back splash.
Screens for windows and sliding glass doors are missing, damaged, or installed incorrectly.
Ceiling drywall is inconsistent finish, tape lines are visible, and cracks are visible throughout home.
Front door light switch is installed on wrong wall.
Counter top in kitchen does not go to wall leaving a large gap between the wall and the end of the counter top.
Patio ceiling has visible tape/ joint lines.
Tile around shower in children’s bathroom is not completed.
Closet door opening are not plumb or straight causing large gaps when doors are shut.
Roof tiles do not go all the way to end cap of tile roof in several ends of the roof.
Two (2) end caps that tie into the garage roof are broken or cut improperly.
Southern bedrooms do not cool to 78 degrees.
Bull nose trim pieces are not consistently the same size throughout home.
Baseboards are broken in some areas, joints of baseboards do not line up properly, Some areas have excessive gaps between base board and wall.
Hot water heater is not supplying hot water to home.
23. The Directive stated that the work had to be completed by 5:00
p.m. on October 10, 2017.
24. Arizona Valley did not correct the items listed in the Directive by October 10, 2017.
25. On October 13, 2017, the Registrar issued a Citation against Arizona Valley alleging violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1154(A)(3) and (A)(22).
26. Arizona Valley field a timely answer to the Citation. Arizona Valley denied that it built the home. Arizona Valley alleged that Landco built the home.
27. The matter was referred to the office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
28. At hearing, Mr. Szuch testified on his own behalf and offered exhibits
A through F. Arizona Valley presented the testimony of Mr. Ellis and submitted exhibits R1 – R4, R6-R11, R15, R16, R18 and R19. Investigator Mike Crow also testified at the hearing.
29. Investigator Crow was Investigator Reed’s supervisor. Investigator Reed no longer works for the Registrar. Investigator Crowe testified that he was not sure whether AZ Valley built the home.
30. On December 14, 2017, Investigator Crowe conducted a compliance jobsite inspection. Investigator Crowe concluded that no work had been performed by Arizona Valley.
31. Mr. Ellis testified that he did not build the home. Mr. Ellis testified that Arizona Valley did not build the home. Mr. Ellis was ill at the time that the home was built. Mr. Szuch contacted Mr. Ellis about repairs that needed to be made on the home during closing. Mr. Ellis hired a handyman to make some repairs on behalf of Lameco. The handyman made repairs to the home during closing including, but limited to, installing screens on the sliding glass doors.
32. The repairs made by the handyman were not a part of the Directive, with the exception of the installation of the screens on the sliding glass doors.
33. However, there was no evidence provided to show that the screens on the sliding glass doors were missing due to poor workmanship on the part of Arizona Valley, Mr. Ellis or the handyman.
34. The Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) shows that Landco is the builder of the home. See Exhibit R6.
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 does not show that Arizona Valley built the home. The MLS shows that Landco is the builder of the home.
Mr. Aguilar admitted to pouring concrete for the home. Arizona Valley cannot be deemed the builder of the home because Mr. Ellis hired a handyman to make repairs during closing, on behalf of Lameco. There was no direct written evidence or eyewitness testimony provided at the hearing to establish that Arizona Valley built the home.
5. This Tribunal concludes that the preponderance of the evidence of record is insufficient and fails to support a conclusion that Respondent violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3), namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108, and A.R.S. 32-1154(A)(22).
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, January 8, 2017.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham, Director
Registrar of Contractors