ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2017A-5960-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2018-04-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Amy Elizabeth Neuenschwander,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Industrious Construction LLC,
License No: 305528
RESPONDENT.
__________________________________
Industrious Construction LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
AZ Stain Concrete LLC,
License No: 275995,
RESPONDENT.
__________________________________
Amy Elizabeth Neuenschwander,
COMPLAINANT,
-v-
Industrious Construction LLC,
License No. 305528,
RESPONDENT.
Nos. 2017A-4048-CHC-ROC,
2017A-4535-CHC-ROC,
and 2017A-5960-CHC-ROC
(Consolidated)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 19, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.
APPEARANCES: Amy Elizabeth Neuenschwander (“Complainant”) appeared on her own behalf; Industrious Construction LLC (“Industrious”) appeared through Joseph Vito Montefour (Mr. Montefour, Sr.”) and Joseph Andrew Montefour (“Mr. Montefour, Jr.”), its members; AZ Stain Concrete LLC (“AZ Stain”) appeared through Mazin (“Mike”) Zoma, its member.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
According to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ (“the Registrar’s”) public website, on or about February 9, 2011, the Registrar issued License No. KB-2.270959-D for dual residential and small commercial contracting to M Squared Construction LLC (“M Squared”). The persons listed on M Squared’s license are its members, Wayne William Montefour, Jr. and Adam Kristopher Desjariais.
On or about December 12, 2011, the Registrar issued License No. CR-5.275995-D for dual concrete coatings to AZ Stain.
On or about May 17, 2016, the Registrar issued License No. KB-2.305528-D to Industrious. The persons listed on Industrious’ license are Wayne William Montefour, qualifying party/member, Mr. Montefour, Sr., and Mr. Montefour, Jr., members. Mr. Montefour, Sr. is Mr. Montefour, Jr.’s father. Wayne William Montefour is Mr. Montefour, Sr.’s nephew and Mr. Montefour, Jr.’s cousin.
The house located at 369 E. Weldon Ave., Phoenix, Arizona (“the house”) was a project that was “flipped” by investors who were associated with Vestis Group. Vestis Group hired M Squared and/or Industrious to act as the general contractor on the project. Work performed before the “flip” included remodeling the original 1945 house and constructing a master suite and kitchen addition behind the original house.
M Squared and/or Industrious subcontracted to AZ Stain the work of applying a 3/8” thick concrete coating over the existing 1945 slab, the slab for the new addition, and the slab for the back porch, for a contract price of $3,750.00.
On or about June 16, 2016, Complainant purchased the house from Vestis Group or its associated investors for a purchase price of $365,191.33. Complainant submitted the MLS listing for the house that advertised that “[t]he majority of the original house was rebuilt” and that “[a]ll systems, roof and trusses” in the addition were “brand-new.”
Complainant testified that when she initially looked at the house, she met Mr. Montefour, Sr. and he said he and M Squared were the general contractor on the renovation of the original house and the construction of the new addition and provided her with a list of subcontractors who had worked on the project.
Mr. Montefour, Sr. testified that he had acted as general contractor in renovating many multifamily properties for Vestis Group or related investors. The house on Weldon was the first single-family project that he had undertaken for Vestis Group. Mr. Montefour, Sr. testified that Vestis Group paid him the cost of his subcontractors, plus 10%.
Case No. 2017-4048
On or about August 7, 2017, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar against Mr. Montefour, Sr. and M Squared, alleging that numerous construction deficiencies, including that the front porch wall was falling down and cracking, that exterior and interior window caulking was cracking, that wood in the front of the house was cracking and seams were opening, that baseboards were separating, and that the interior floor was cracked into the foundation throughout the house. The Registrar designated Complainant’s August 7, 2017 complaint against M Squared and Mr. Montefour, Sr. as Case No. 2017-4048.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to its Investigator, Michael Scanlon, for investigation. Investigator Scanlon performed a jobsite inspection on September 1, 2017, which Mr. Montefour, Sr. attended on behalf of M Squared. A representative of Vestis Group also attended the jobsite inspection.
Mr. Montefour, Sr. informed Investigator Scanlon at the September 1, 2017 inspection that Industrious, not M Squared, had acted as general contractor on the project. On September 8, 2017, Investigator Scanlon issued a Directive that required M Squared to remedy by appropriate means fifteen items on the complaint.
On September 13, 2017, Investigator Scanlon reissued the Directive to Industrious based on what Mr. Montefour, Sr. and M Squared had told him, requiring Industrious to remedy the same fifteen workmanship deficiencies on or before September 25, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
On September 14, 2017, Investigator Scanlon performed a second jobsite inspection after Complainant called additional workmanship deficiencies to his attention at the September 1, 2017 inspection, which Mr. Montefour, Sr. attended on Industrious behalf. On September 18, 2017, Investigator Scanlon issued a second Directive to Industrious, requiring it to remedy five more workmanship deficiencies on or before October 4, 2017, at 5:00 p.m.
On October 13, 2017, Investigator Scanlon performed a compliance jobsite inspection. Investigator Scanlon determined that Industrious had corrected only five of the 20 items on the September 13, 2017 and September 18, 2017 Directives, in relevant part as follows:
1. Fix decorative wall in front yard from sinking, fix cracking mortar, and paint. Not completed
2. Fix all exterior paint on outside of house. Not Completed
3. Fix the block columns pulling away from house and block wall. Not completed
4. Fix backyard patio concrete. Not completed
5. Fix all caulking around windows inside and outside. Not completed
6. Fix wood trim on front right window. Not completed
7. Fix finished concrete floor throughout inside of home and paint. Not completed
8. Fix all caulking on base boards throughout home. Not completed
9. Fix sheetrock hole in master closet next to the cable box. Not completed
10. Fix interior paint on kitchen walls. Not completed
11. Fix grout/caulking at kitchen and master bathroom counter top and back splash. Not completed
12. Fix wood support posts and beam on backyard patio. Not completed
13. Fix drywall mud, paint, and grout in hall bathroom ceiling. Not completed
14. Fix side entry door paint peeling. Done
15. Fix cracking seam in backyard patio at back wall and roof. Not completed
16. Fix sheetrock mud and paint in the front bedroom around the register and in the front bedroom closet. Done
17. Terminate phone wire appropriately. Not completed
18. Fix loose hose bib, stucco, and paint on back of house. Done
19. Fix loose hose bib, stucco, and paint on left side of house. Done
20. Fix cleanout cover on back of house. Done
The Registrar’s electronic file at Rcc104 Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes1.rtf.
After the compliance inspection, Investigator Scanlon referred Case No. 2017-4048 to the Registrar’s Legal Department. On October 1, 2017, the Registrar issued a Citation against Industrious, charging cause to revoke or suspend its contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(14), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Mr. Montefour, Sr. filed a timely written answer to the Citation, affirmatively alleging that Complainant had refused to allow Industrious to repair the flooring three times and that most of the remaining items were minor. Mr. Montefour, Sr. also stated in relevant part as follows:
[The project] was being built under msquared construction ROC#270959 licensed (At the time General Contractor Joseph Montefour was under the licensed). Industrious construction is another company that was being created by Joseph Montefour at the time, and was selling msquared to the partners of msquared. When the complaint was received by msquared they contacted Joseph Montefour and we switch over the complaint to Industrious construction. The reason Joseph Montefour is not on the original licensed of msquared is because he started a new company and sold off msquared to the partners and switching over to a new business (Industrious construction).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
Case No. 2017-4535
On or about September 5, 2017, Mr. Montefour, Sr. on behalf of Industrious filed a complaint against AZ Stain, alleging that the floor had cracked on the slab at the house and that “Mike refuses to come back and fix warranty work.” According to Industrious’ complaint, AZ Stain applied the 3/8” concrete coating to the slabs between February 20, 2016, and March 4, 2016. The Registrar designated the complaint as Case No. 2017-4535.
On September 14, 2017, Investigator Scanlon performed a jobsite inspection in Case No. 2017-4535. AZ Stain did not attend the jobsite inspection. On September 18, 2017, Investigator Scanlon issued a Directive to AZ Stain, requiring to remedy the following two defects before October 4, 2017, at 5:00 p.m.:
1. Correct all previous repairs made to cracks in the existing concrete slab on the interior of the home and the transition between the new and existing slabs.
2. Correct all previous repairs made to the cracks in the concrete patio. Correction needs to blend in with the existing concrete surface.
On October 13, 2017, Investigator Scanlon performed a compliance jobsite inspection, which AZ Stain’s representative attended. Investigator Scanlon’s compliance jobsite inspection notes stated as follows:
No work was done on the concrete by the respondent. Respondent stated that the cracking of the concrete was [due] to the [pouring] of the concrete and possible foundation problems. Respondent also state he did not want to do the repairs until the concrete foundation was fixed. [Industrious] did hire another contractor to do an overlay on the concrete patio to hide the craking of top of the concrete, but did not fix the cracking problem in the slab.
After the compliance inspection, Investigator Scanlon referred Case No. 2017-4535 to the Registrar’s Legal Department. On October 16, 2017, the Registrar issued a Citation against AZ Stain, charging cause to revoke or suspend its contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
AZ Stain filed a timely written answer to the Citation, again alleging that the cause of the poor appearance of the floor was the cracks in the foundation, some of which were so large that “you can see down through the original foundation.”
The Registrar referred Case No. 2017-4535 to OAH for an evidentiary hearing.
Case No. 2017-5960
On November 30, 2017, Complainant filed a second complaint against Mr. Montefour, Sr. and Industrious, alleging additional deficiencies in the block wall around the perimeter of the property. The Registrar designated the complaint as Case No. 2017-5960.
Because Investigator Scanlon no longer worked for the Registrar, Case No. 2017-5960 was assigned to Investigator Jack Grimm for investigation. On January 5, 2018, Investigator Grimm performed a jobsite inspection, which Mr. Montefour, Sr. attended on behalf of Industrious. On January 11, 2018, Investigator Grimm issued a Directive that required Industrious to remedy certain workmanship deficiencies before January 27, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., in relevant part as follows:
Correct all block fence columns out of plumb greater than 1⁄4 inch.
Masonry columns should be plumb within 1⁄4 inch and in line within 1⁄4 inch.
Correct location at east wall panel where block fence panel is not in the column block.
Correct stair stepping separation in panel at rear wall.
Correct failing mortar between block at southwest corner.
After Complainant informed Investigator Grimm that Industrious had not corrected any of the items on the January 11, 2018 Directive, he referred Case No. 2017-5960 to the Registrar’s Legal Department. On February 1, 2018, the Registrar issued a Citation against Industrious, charging cause to revoke or suspend its contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Mr. Montefour, Sr. on Industrious’ behalf filed a timely written answer to the Citation in Case No. 2017-5960, denying any statutory violation and affirmatively alleging that Complainant had caused all the observed deficiencies by installing gates and a sprinkler system that soaked the wall.
The Registrar referred Case No. 2017-5960 to OAH for an evidentiary hearing.
The Hearing
OAH eventually consolidated Case Nos. 2017-4048, 2017-4535, and 2017-5960 for hearing. An evidentiary hearing was held on March 19, 2018. Complainant submitted four exhibits, testified on her own behalf, and presented the testimony of Victor Rivera, an employee of Arizona Foundation Solutions who had inspected the original slab and the slab for the addition and had drafted a detailed report of his findings. Mr. Montefour, Sr. and Mr. Montefour, Jr. testified and submitted fourteen exhibits on Industrious’ behalf. Mr. Zoma testified and played into the record a voicemail message from Mr. Montefour, Sr. on AZ Stain’s behalf. The Registrar’s Assistant Chief of Construction Investigations, Mike Crow (“Assistant Chief Investigator Crow”) and Investigator Grimm also testified.
Additional Evidence Offered at the Hearing
Assistant Chief Investigator Crow testified that he was Investigator Scanlon’s supervisor. Assistant Chief Investigator Crow testified that he had reviewed all the Registrar’s documentation and photographs for Case Nos. 2017-4048 and 2017-4535.
Assistant Chief Investigator Crow testified that according to the Registrar’s notes, on September 13, 2017, Mr. Montefour, Sr. informed Investigator Scanlon that Complainant had filed the complaint in Case No. 2017-4048 against the wrong contractor. On September 13, 2017, Mr. Montefour, Sr.’s nephew who worked for M Squared sent an email to Investigator Scanlon, informing him that Mr. Montefour, Sr. did not work for M. Squared.
The Registrar’s electronic file in Case No. 2017-4048 contains a letter from Wayne Montefour, Jr., the manager and a member of M Squared, which the Registrar received on September 18, 2017. Wayne Montefour, Jr.’s letter stated that although Mr. Montefour, Sr. formerly had been a member of M Squared, on September 10, 2015, Mr. Montefour, Sr. had sold all of his membership units in M Squared and ceased to be affiliated in any way with M Squared. The letter also stated that on February 19, 2016, the remaining members of M Squared amended its records to remove Mr. Montefour, Sr. as manager and member. According to Wayne Montefour, Jr., “[a]pparently [Mr. Montefour, Sr.] utilized the registrar of Contractors license of [M Squared] without authorization or right to utilize the same.”
Although the certificate that Wayne Montefour, Jr. attached to the letter evidenced a transfer of 33.33 units back to M Squared that was signed by its remaining members, Wayne Montefour, Jr. and Adam Desjariais, the record in this matter does not show whether Mr. Montefour, Sr. was ever listed on M Squared license or, if so, when M Squared’s remaining members filed a notice of disassociation with the Registrar.
Although Industrious submitted the City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department Inspection History Report that showed that the project had passed all of the City’s inspections, neither the permit from the City nor Vestis Group’s contract with the general contractor was submitted.
Industrious submitted exhibits to show that Complainant received a Buyers Inspection Notice, informing her of her right to have the house inspected before she purchased it and a letter dated April 23, 2016, from Inspect-It 1st stating that it had discovered no visible defects in the house and that it appeared to have been constructed in a workmanlike manner. The April 23, 2016 Inspect-It 1st letter also cautioned that “[h]idden or concealed defects cannot be included in this report.”
With respect to Industrious’ complaint against AZ Stain in Case No. 2017-4535, Assistant Chief Investigator Crow testified that before a contractor performs contracting work over a substrate, the contractor is expected to review the condition of the substrate because he must warranty his work for two years. After the contractor has accepted the substrate by performing work on top of it, he cannot avoid responsibility by claiming that deficiencies in his work was caused by the condition of the substrate.
Assistant Chief Investigator Crow testified that he performed a prehearing inspection on December 4, 2017, and that conditions had not changed at the jobsite since the compliance inspections in Case Nos. 2017-4048 and 2017-4535. Assistant Chief Investigator Crow testified that he agreed with all the workmanship deficiencies that Investigator Scanlon had identified.
Assistant Chief Investigator Crow testified that the warranty for new construction begins at earlier of the close of escrow or when the buyer occupies the house. Since Complainant closed escrow on June 15, 2016, that is when the workmanship warranty began for most items.
Assistant Chief Investigator Crow acknowledged that the General Statements in Registrar’s written workmanship standards provide that owner maintenance items include “[i]nterior and exterior caulking (excluding roofing sealant) after the first year of occupancy.”
Mr. Zoma testified that there were significant cracks on the old and the new slabs. He told Complainant that AZ Stain would repair the cracks in the concrete overlay, but that the cracks would reappear within six months due to cracks in the underlying slab.
Complainant testified that she called the Registrar’s office to see what she should do, but was told that staff could not give legal advice about Mr. Zoma’s condition for performing repairs. Complainant acknowledged that she told Mr. Zoma she did not want AZ Stain to perform repairs that would not last.
Industrious submitted Complainant’s emails requesting that it install hardwood flooring in lieu of repairing the concrete overlay that AZ Stain stated that it could not warranty for more than six months.
Industrious also submitted an invoice from Desert Ready Mix LLC to Capital Concrete LLC dated November 25, 2015, for 22 yards of 3,000 psi concrete.
Complainant hired Arizona Foundation Solutions to inspect and measure visible failure in the slabs. Mr. Rivera performed an inspection and issued an 18-page report. Mr. Rivera testified that engineer John Kaminsky, P.E., reviewed the report.
Mr. Rivera testified that he prepared a footprint of the house and looked at drainage, gutters, and other evidence of movement around the house. He used a Manometer to measure various elevations of the slabs and prepared a topographic survey of the results. Mr. Rivera testified that differences in elevation were caused by heaving or settlement of the slabs, possibly caused by moisture in the ground underneath the slabs.
Mr. Rivera testified that the original 1945 home had a heave pattern and that the highest elevation was 9.9” in the front bedroom. In contrast, the addition showed signs of settlement, with the lowest elevation being 8.6” in the master suite portion of the addition. Mr. Rivera testified that he did not look for plumbing leaks, but that the movement of the slabs may have been caused by water in the expansive soils beneath the slabs.
Mr. Rivera noted that the house had no gutters and testified that he believed the damage to the original slab was caused by years of runoff and that the damage did not happen overnight. Mr. Rivera noted evidence that cracks in the slab had been filled and had reopened.
Mr. Rivera also measured the tilt of the slabs to measure deflection, which showed how close the slabs were to failing. The deflection that he measured had a score of 369, which was close to failing. Mr. Rivera testified that the failing slab caused visible cracks, as well as misaligned doors, pinched windows, cracked interior and exterior walls, and out-of-square walls.
Investigator Grimm testified that due to animosity between the parties, he advised Complainant that she was required to grant access to Respondent to perform repairs to the wall and advised Mr. Montefour, Sr. that he should make an appointment with Complainant to schedule Industrious’ repairs. Complainant later said that Industrious had not contacted her. Mr. Montefour, Sr. stated that Industrious had not performed any repairs because it did not have a contract with Complainant.
In response to Industrious’ questions, Investigator Grimm testified that he did not believe that the sprinkler system at the house cause the block wall to fail. Investigator Grimm also testified that a gate that was too heavy would only affect the column to which the gate was affixed and that none of the columns in which he had observed deficiencies had a gate on them.
Pursuant to A.A.C. R4-9-117, administrative notice is taken of Industrial’s prior disciplinary history as shown on the Registrar’s public website. On this date, the website showed that Industrial’s License No. KB-2.305528-D was current and in good standing. On this date, AZ Stain’s License No. CR-5.275995-D also was current and in good standing. Neither Respondents’ license shows any history of discipline or administrative suspensions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Industrious’ license by a preponderance of the evidence. Industrious bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline AZ Stain’s license by the same evidentiary standard. Industrious and AZ Stain bear the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty or affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” 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.”
The dates on the complaints and the various contracts and invoices that were submitted establish that most if not all of the work on the project pursuant to Industrious’ contract with Vestis Group was completed before the Registrar issued Industrious’ license. The September 18, 2017 letter from M Squared alleged that Mr. Montefour, Sr. used M Squared’s license without its permission to contract with Vestis Group, to obtain permits, and/or to pass the City’s inspections on the project. Complainant credibly testified that when she initially visited the house, Mr. Montefour, Sr. identified himself and M Squared as the general contractor.
Therefore, Complainant established that Industrious acted in the capacity of a contractor under M Squared’s license in a name other than was later set forth on Industrious’ license, furnishing cause to suspend or revoke Industrious’ license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(14).
Complainant established that Industrious poured a concrete slab for the addition that is cracking and on the verge of failure. Complainant also established that Industrious ignored and did not take steps to repair cracks and other signs of heaving in the 1945 slab for the original house before it started renovations pursuant to its contract with Vestis Group.
As a general principle in construction, a contractor who performs work on top of a surface prepared by another accepts the surface. The contractor should have inspected the surface for any flaws or defects that would affect the work he proposes before performing the work. If he found the surface to be unacceptable, he should have called any defects to the owner’s attention so that the owner can choose whether to pay for the defective surface to be corrected or if the owner is not willing to pay to correct the surface, the subsequent contractor may obtain an explicit warranty disclaimer.
A.R.S. § 32-1155(A) requires contractors to warranty their work for two years after the close of escrow or occupancy, whichever comes first. The purpose of the Registrar’s office and the requirement that contractors be licensed and regulated is to protect the public, including members of the public like Complainant who make the substantial investment of buying a house from a “flipper” who has hired a licensed contractor to obtain permits and to perform renovations. The facts that Industrious’ contract was with Vestis Group and AZ Stain’s subcontract was with Industrious do not bar Complainant’s complaints. If anything, Industrial’s and AZ Stain’s participation in Vestis Group’s scheme to maximize the profit to be made from the resale of the house to an unsuspecting member of the public by making superficial, cosmetic upgrades to mask serious structural defects is a more egregious violation of the Registrar’s statutes.
Industrious established that it is not responsible for the caulking on the windows, the baseboards, and the kitchen and master bathroom counters because these items are homeowner maintenance issues after the first year under the Registrar’s workmanship standards. Complainant did not file a complaint with the Registrar about them until August 7, 2017, more than a year after she closed escrow on June 15, 2016.
Complainant established that Industrious’ workmanship did not comply with the Registrar’s or industry standards in constructing the front decorative front wall that is sinking, the exterior paint, the block columns that are pulling away from the house, the back patio concrete, the wood trim on the front right window, the cracking finished concrete floor in the original house and addition, the sheetrock hole in the master closet next to the cable box, the interior paint in the kitchen, the wood support posts and beam on the backyard patio, the drywall mud and paint in the hall bathroom ceiling, the cracking seam in the backyard patio at the back wall and roof, the termination of the phone wire, the out-of-plumb fence columns, the fence panel on the east wall that was not in the fence column, the stair stepping separation at the rear wall, and the failing mortar between blocks at the southwest corner. Complainant has therefore established cause to suspend or revoke Industrious’ contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108.
Industrious established that AZ Stain’s workmanship did not comply with the Registrar’s or industry standards in constructing and repairing the concrete overlay and its repairs to the concrete slabs in the 1945 home, the addition, and the back patio. Because Industrious subcontracted this work to AZ Stain, it is responsible for AZ Stain’s deficient work, at least as to Complainant. Industrious has therefore established cause to suspend or revoke AZ Stain’s contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108.
Complainant’s refusal to allow AZ Stain to attempt to repair the concrete overlay after Mr. Zoma told her that it could only warranty the repairs for six months, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1155(A), is not a denial of reasonable access. The Registrar’s statutes do not require a homeowner to relinquish a right granted to her by statute in exchange for having more short-term cosmetic repairs performed. Therefore, Complainant established cause to discipline Industrious’ contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). Industrious also established cause to discipline AZ Stain’s contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
The Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Registrar on its own motion investigate the role and responsibility of M Squared Construction LLC’s License No. KB-2.270959-D in the permitting and the construction of the project, including whether it timely notified the Registrar’s of Mr. Montefour, Sr.’s disassociation from M Squared, especially if Complainant makes a claim to the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund to recover the damages caused by the construction deficiencies established in this workmanship complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, License No. KB-2.305528-D of Respondent Industrious Construction LLC shall be suspended for a period of thirty (30) calendar days.
It is further ordered that the Registrar require Industrious to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further ordered that if Industrious fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the final order, the Registrar shall revoke Industrious’ license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Industrious, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Industrious tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further ordered that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, Respondent AZ Stain Concrete LLC’s License No. CR-5.275995-D shall be suspended for a period of fourteen (14) calendar days.
It is further ordered that the Registrar require AZ Stain to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further ordered that if AZ Stain fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the final order, the Registrar shall revoke AZ Stain’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with AZ Stain, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless AZ Stain tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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, April 6, 2018.
/s/ Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham, Director
Registrar of Contractors