ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2018A-1385-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2018-07-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Desert Breeze Glass LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

East Valley Disaster Services Inc.,

License No:

276088, 153321, 097838

RESPONDENT.

No. 2018A-1385-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 15, 2018

APPEARANCES: Cathryn Curcio, Owner and President, appeared on behalf of Complainant Desert Breeze Glass LLC. Stuart MacLay, Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent East Valley Disaster Services Inc.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

East Valley Disaster Services, Inc. (Respondent) is the holder of License Nos. 276088, 153321, 097838 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about March 26, 2018, Desert Breeze Glass LLC (Complainant) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $3730.25 for the installation of windows.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences, and Complainant requested an administrative hearing. The Registrar then issued a Citation for Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).

Ms. Curcio testified that the total due to Complainant was $3730.25. Ms. Curcio stated that Complainant was hired to install windows in two properties side by side that had been damaged in a fire. Ms. Curcio acknowledged there were gaps around the windows after the initial installation due to the fact that the rough opening in the Arizona room was not square and the windows had to fit inside the opening. Ms. Curcio stated that the windows installed were identical in size to the ones that were removed and that after the trim and caulk was completed, there were no issues with the gaps.

Marvin MacLay, Project Manager, testified that the homeowner saw the windows after they had been installed and was concerned with the gaps around the windows before the trim and caulk had been completed and that he wanted to put the project on hold until he could meet with Complainant. Mr. MacLay indicated that Complainant would never meet with the homeowner. Mr. MacLay stated that eventually Respondent had to get someone else to look at the project and they ordered. Mr. MacLay posited that if Complainant would have met with the homeowner and made him feel better about the project, they could have gone forward. Mr. MacLay testified that Respondent had told Complainant to put the project on hold, but it came out and completed the project anyway.

Neither party provided any specific dates of the events they described or submitted communications exchanged between the parties. The photographs submitted of the windows prior to the finish phase demonstrate gaps that were seemingly large in areas, but did not demonstrate any apparent flaws after the trim and caulk.

Respondent did not assert that it lacked the capacity to pay the amount Complainant asserted was due.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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).

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.

Complainant asserted that Respondent owed a total of $3730.25 for the windows, but a valid question was presented as to the workmanship of Complainant’s work on the project. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $3730.25 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

RECOMMENDed order

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order in this matter, the Registrar close Complainant Desert Breeze Glass LLC’s complaint in Case No. 2018-1385 against Respondent East Valley Disaster Services, Inc.’s License Nos. 276088, 153321, 097838.

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 40 days from the date of the certification.

Done this day, July 5, 2018

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors