ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2018A-2056-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2021-09-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Thomas B. Ross,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Jason Lee Sandoval

DBA: Mesquite Masonry,

License No. ROC 315320,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2018A-2056-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 8, 2021

APPEARANCES: Complainant Thomas B. Ross appeared on behalf of himself. Assistant Attorney General Sarah A. Asta appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant Thomas B. Ross and Respondent Jason Lee Sandoval DBA: Mesquite Masonry entered into a contract wherein Respondent would install a block fence at Complainant’s home.

2. Complainant filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) alleging abandonment on the part of Respondent. The Registrar investigated the complaint and issued a Written Directive to Respondent. The Directive did not include the installation of lintels and the repairs listed in the Directive were limited to the those needed for the East wall. Respondent failed to comply with the Directive and a Citation was issued against Respondent’s license.

3. The Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order finding that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). The Registrar suspended Respondent’s license for a period of 3 days.

4. On December 16, 2020, Complainant filed a claim for a payout from the Registrar’s Recovery fund. The total amount of Complainant’s contract with Respondent was $11,880.77. Complainant submitted bids to repair the work in connection with his claim. The Registrar used the bid from Block More Masonry because Block More had begun corrective work on Complainant’s home.

5. Complainant’s repair cost was $3,366.72. The Registrar deducted the cost to install lintels, repairs that exceeded the East Wall, and the cost of the renewal fee for the failed inspection. The cost to repair the work was reduced to $1,600.09.

6. The Registrar found that Complainant paid a total of $12,975.53 for the construction project. However, the Registrar discounted $1,748.77 because the payments were made to unlicensed contractors. The Registrar also discounted $2,350 in the calculation of damages because Complainant received $2,350 from the bond company.

7. The Registrar concluded that Complainant’s compensable “actual damages” were -$1,653.51.

8. On or about June 29, 2021, the Registrar issued a Notice and Order Recovery Fund Claim Denial to Mr. Ross because Mr. Ross incurred compensable “actual damages” in the amount of -$1,653.51.

9. Mr. Ross filed a timely request for hearing regarding the June 29, 2021 denial.

10. At hearing, Complainant contended that he should receive a payout from the Registrar’s recovery fund because he hired Respondent who failed to complete the work. Complainant contended that he made payments to finish the project and was not aware that some of the workers that he paid were unlicensed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Complainant bears the burden of proof and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence 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 (6th ed. 1990).

Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1132(A) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

An award from the fund is limited to the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of the contractor's violation but shall not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.

Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the

Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Registrar’s June 29, 2021 Notice and Order Recovery Fund Claim Denial was improper.

5. Consequently, the Registrar appropriately denied Complainant’s Recovery Fund claim.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Thomas B. Ross’s appeal is 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, September 28, 2021.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors