FINACT2018A-04910-ROC.pdf

2018A-04910-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2019-02-28

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

HR Foam and Insulation LLC, Case No. 2018-04910 DBA: HR Roofing Solutions Docket No. 2018A-04910-ROC COMPLAINANT, v. FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND ORDER Sage Luxury Homes LLC, License No. ROC 233417, RESPONDENT.

Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(B), the Registrar may review and accept, modify, or reject an administrative law judge’s written decision. If the Registrar modifies or rejects that decision, then the Registrar must provide written justification setting forth the reasons for the modification or rejection. REGISTRAR’S ACCEPTANCE In this case, a hearing was held, and the administrative law judge issued a written decision. See Administrative Law Judge Decision, attached. The Registrar reviewed that decision and hereby accepts it. CONCLUSION Because the Registrar has accepted the administrative law judge’s decision, that decision is the final administrative decision in this case and becomes effective on April 7, 2019. FINAL NOTE On page 2, line 5 replace “November 2, 2018” with “December 12, 2018.”

Dated February 26, 2019.

Registrar of Contractors

/s/ Joseph Citelli Joseph Citelli Chief Counsel Chief of Legal Department and Recovery Fund

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail February 26, 2019 to: Respondent Sage Luxury Homes LLC 4400 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 9, Box 735 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Complainant HR Foam and Insulation LLC DBA: HR Roofing Solutions 1910 S Stapley Dr Ste 221 Mesa, AZ 85204 AND copy electronically mailed this same date to: Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar Office of Administrative Hearings Roger A. Geddes, Administrative Law Judge

Case No. 2018-04910 / AN

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 RECEIVED 2.4.2019 ROC LEGAL

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HR Foam and Insulation LLC, No. 2018A-04910-ROC DBA: HR Roofing Solutions ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE COMPLAINANT DECISION v. Sage Luxury Homes LLC, License No. ROC 233417, RESPONDENT

HEARING: January 17, 2019, 8:30 A.M. APPEARANCES: Josh Reeves, owner, appeared on behalf of Complainant; no appearance was made on behalf of Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Roger A. Geddes _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE 1. Sage Luxury Homes, LLC (Respondent), is the holder of License Number 233417 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). 2. On or about October 16, 2018, HR Foam and Insulation, LLC, dba HR Roofing Solutions (Complainant), filed a Complaint against Respondent with

the Registrar alleging that Respondent owed Complainant the sum of $23,850.00. This

amount represented two unpaid invoices relating to Complainant’s installation of a

urethane roofing system and the repair of stucco for Respondent.

3. On November 2, 2018, the Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) for the alleged failure by Respondent to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. The Registrar referred the matter to the

Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 RECEIVED 2.4.2019 ROC LEGAL

Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 4. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing that set a hearing for January 17, 2018, at 8:30 A.M. The Registrar mailed a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent on or about November 2, 2018, at its address of record. 5. The Notice of Hearing informed the parties that “[f]ailure to attend the scheduled hearing is likely to result in an adverse ruling against you.” The Notice of Hearing further advised of the procedure for requesting a continuance of the hearing. 6. At the hearing, Complainant appeared and presented the testimony of Josh Reeves.1 7. Although the commencement of the hearing was delayed approximately minutes, Respondent did not appear at any time during the hearing through an authorized officer, employee, attorney, or any other person. Consequently,

Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license. Respondent further did

not request to appear telephonically nor did not request that the hearing be continued.

8 Josh Reeves, owner, testified on behalf of Complainant that Respondent

paid $17,700.00 on November 1, 2018, towards the two outstanding invoices and that Respondent still owed Complainant the amount of $6,150.00. He indicated Respondent issued another check in the amount of $5,700.00 on December 7, 2018, but directed Complainant not to negotiate it until Respondent had the funds to cover it. He stated Complainant has not negotiated the $5,700.00 check and has verified with the bank that there are insufficient funds to cover the check. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32- 1101, et seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.

1 The Tribunal also took administrative notice of the Registrar’s file. RECEIVED 2.4.2019 ROC LEGAL

2. 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 preponderance of the evidence. See Arizona Administrative Code Rule 2- 19-119. 3. To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, a Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (Rev. 6th ed.

1990).

4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension,

revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license:

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

5. The evidence established that Respondent failed to pay the amount of $6,150.00 to Complainant for services rendered in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. There was no evidence presented to rebut the existence or extent of nonpayment.

RECEIVED 2.4.2019 ROC LEGAL

6. In this matter, Complainant has established that Respondent’s license should be disciplined for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of this order, Respondent’s License Number 233417 is suspended until the Registrar receives and accepts written verification that Respondent has paid $6,150.00 to Complainant in certified funds. It is further recommended that if and when the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $6,150.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close this Complaint. In the event of certification of this 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 the certification.

Done this day, February 4, 2019.

/s/ Roger Geddes Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors