ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2018A-2686-RFA-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2019-10-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 4, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: A V S Framing and Drywall LLC (“Respondent”) was represented by Nelson A.F. Mixon, Esq., Holden Willits, PLC; Emily Groh (“Complainant”) appeared on her own behalf; the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) was represented by John R. Tellier, Esq., Assistant Attorney General. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background 1. According to the Registrar’s public website, on June 12, 2007, the Registrar issued License No. ROC 234047 for Specialty Dual CR-7 Carpentry and License No. ROC 234048 for Specialty Dual CR-10 Drywall to Respondent. 2. On August 6, 2017, the Registrar issued a Notice of Claim for Administrative Payout, notifying the parties that “Complainant filed a claim for payment with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund [(“the Fund”)] pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(G). After a review of the claim and all supporting documentation, the Fund has determined that Complainant is to be awarded $30,000.00 in the form of a payment issued by the Fund.” 3. After Respondent requested a hearing on the amount of the payout, the Registrar referred Complainant’s claim to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 4. A hearing on the merits was held on October 4, 2019. The Registrar presented the testimony of Flora Hayden, the Legal Assistant in the Registrar’s Legal Department/Fund who had analyzed Complainant’s claim, and submitted thirteen exhibits. Respondent presented the testimony of its member/qualifying party, Arnold Arteaga, and its office manager, Jessie Harris, and submitted thirty-five exhibits. Complainant testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Pamela Moore, who was living in Complainant’s house when another contractor repaired and completed Respondent’s work.[1] Background: The Underlying Workmanship Complaint 5. On or about June 13, 2018, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent alleging fifteen specific items of complaint. Complainant stated on the complaint that she had paid Respondent $86,800.00 of the $97,740.00 contract amount to construct a significant addition to her residence. Complainant indicated that, although the contract was written, the change orders were oral.[2] 6. Complainant attached to her complaint Respondent’s “Tenant Improvement Project Contract,” which she had signed on October 17, 2017. The contract provided that in exchange for a contract price of $97,740.00, Respondent would perform the following scope of work: [Respondent] shall furnish all of the labor, materials, equipment, clean-up, and removal of construction debris and perform all of the work to the interior Area as specified in the Proposal Bid 1969325, Tenant Improvement Project, and agreed to by [Complainant] on the property which is located at 5131 N 6th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85012.

Interior: Concrete, framing, drywall, taping, flooring, roofing, electrical, plumbing, A/C, insulation, windows, doors, trim, garage, siding, stucco, and painting (painting to new Tenant Improvement area only).[3]

7. Complainant apparently did not submit the Project Proposal Bid that the contract referenced with the complaint that she filed with the Registrar. The scope of work on Respondent’s Project Proposal Bid provided the following: 1. Concrete 2. Framing / Drywall / Taping 3. Windows / Doors / Trim 4. Flooring 5. Roofing 6. Garage 7. Insulation 8. Stucco 9. Siding 10. Painting (New Tenant Improvement Only) 11. A/C 12. Electrical 13. Plumbing[4]

8. Complainant provided copies of her checks to Respondent in the cumulative amount of $86,800.00.[5] 9. The Registrar assigned the complaint to its Investigator, Lisa Melton, for investigation. Investigator Melton performed a jobsite inspection on July 16, 2018. Investigator Melton’s jobsite inspection notes state that, although Complainant complained about the gate, it did not appear to be part of Respondent’s contract. Inspector Melton substantiated that the wall tile and grout in the bathroom was incomplete, but had areas where the grout was missing or irregular, that the drywall in the main house was damaged by a roof leak where the addition connected to the existing house, that the finish on the back patio was unsightly, and that the project was incomplete.[6] 10. On July 24, 2018, Investigator Melton issued a directive to Respondent. The directive noted that because most of the general contracting work was beyond the scope of Respondent’s drywall and framing licenses and because Respondent’s licenses were administratively suspended for lack of bond, it could not perform repairs or hire others to perform repairs, but could only remedy its violations “by paying a properly licensed contractor hired by Complainant” to correct the following deficiencies on or before 5:00 p.m. on August 13, 2018: Complaint Item 1: Contractor unresponsive when attempting to contact.

Respondent is to complete project per Contract documents.

Complaint Item 6: Tile flooring/bathroom walls not properly installed and prepped.

Respondent is to correct in an appropriate manner; missing or irregular tiles and grout, loose and/or hollow sounding tiles and tiles that have been poorly cut.

Complaint Item 9: New patio poured and not properly finished.

Respondent is to correct in an appropriate manner; unsightly, uneven and wavy patio.

Complaint Item 12: Roof leak in main house after repeating water damage. (Drywall repair – Leak was repaired prior to the Jobsite Inspection)

Respondent is to correct in an appropriate manner; damage from leak.[7]

11. Eventually, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s licenses, charging cause to revoke or suspend the licenses under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3),[8] namely A.A.C. R4-9-108,[9] and A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(22).[10] After Respondent failed to file a timely written answer to the Citation, the Registrar issued a final order against Respondent, deeming it to have admitted the charged violations in the Citation under A.R.S. § 32-1155(C) and imposing a one-day disciplinary suspension on its licenses and assessing a civil penalty as a result.[11] Complainants’ Claim to the Fund 12. On or about June 7, 2019, Complainant submitted a claim to the Fund to recover the damages that were allegedly caused by Respondent’s failures to repair its work or to complete the job, requesting a payout in the amount of $30,000.00, based on the $45,368.82 that she had paid to Bugle Construction LLC (“Bugle”) for this work.[12] 13. Complainant submitted with her June 7, 2019 claim her October 1, 2018 contract with Bugle in the amount of $38,550.00, which was not itemized,[13] copies of her cancelled checks and wire transfers to Bugle in the amount of $45,368.82,[14] and her letter explaining why she had to hire Bugle before she submitted her claim to the Fund, which provided in relevant part as follows: Please consider my enclosed application for the Residential Recovery Fund. My initial contractor walked away from the job prior to finishing.

This left my household:

1. Without Hot water 2. Without Working HVAC 3. Leaking roof

I was left in a position where I and to come up with over $45,000.00 in order to rectify poor construction issues and for the next contractor to complete the job. . . .[15]

14. Complainant submitted with her claim to the Fund three estimates to repair and complete the project, as follows: 1. Bugle’s September 29, 2019 bid, which was not itemized, in the total amount of $38,550.00, including upgraded door hardware, refinishing existing exterior post and beams, demo-ing subway wall tile and reinstalling new, demo-ing portions of the driveway, anchoring the gate to the block wall for support and welding a new lock system onto the gate, running new wiring from the panel to the pool motor, installing a seamless gutter on the new build and the east side of the existing house, installing a new tub and plumbing fixtures “per plans,” installing a new drainage area in front of the garage, installing new cabinets and countertops in bathroom #1 and a new vanity in bathroom #2, and installing decorative brick on top of the patio posts and outdoor fireplace base (labor only). Bugle’s bid included labor but not materials to install door hardware, cabinetry and countertops in the laundry room, and faucets, shower valves, and trim kits.[16] 2. Silver Rock Builders’ (“Silver Rock’s”) undated, itemized bid in the total amount of $48,746.63, which was comprised almost totally of various allowances, including allowances for cabinetry and trim/finish carpentry to install them, an allowance for garage floor paint and countertops, and an allowance for bath mirrors. Silver Rock included a $200.00 allowance for HVAC work.[17] 3. S&R Builders LLC’s (“S&R’s”) August 19, 2018, itemized bid in the amount of $33,055.67, which required the customer to provide shower trims, tile, wood floor, doors, and hardware.[18] S&R did not include any amounts for HVAC work. 15. S&R’s bid included installing gutters ($800.00), master bathroom cabinets ($790.00), and granite tops ($1,920.00). Additional Evidence Submitted at the Hearing 16. Ms. Hayden testified that, although the Fund usually calculates a claimant’s compensable damages based on the amount of the low bid to repair the work, in this case it calculated Complainant’s damages based on the full amount paid to Bugle because the work had already been performed when Complainant submitted her claim. Ms. Hayden testified that she contacted Investigator Melton to see if any items on Bugle’s contract were not included in the directive and that Ms. Melton stated that the gate was not included. Ms. Hayden therefore deducted $900.00 from Bugle’s contract for the gate.[19] Ms. Hayden explained that because Complainant’s damages exceeded $30,000.00, even after the $10,940.00 that she owed Respondent was deducted from the $45,368.82 that she paid Bugle, the Registrar calculated Complainant’s compensable damages at the maximum allowed under A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(D). 17. Ms. Hayden acknowledged that S&R’s low bid was approximately $12,000.00 less than the amount that Complainant paid to Bugle. Ms. Hayden acknowledged that many of the items in Bugle’s bid and contract were not included in Respondent’s contract with Complainant and that the Registrar’s position was that a Fund claimant should be paid damages to compensate her for incomplete or deficient work under the Respondent’s original scope of work. A Fund claimant should not recover the costs of upgrades or work beyond the scope of the respondent’s contract. 18. Although Ms. Hayden acknowledged that Respondent’s contract did not include a new drainage area in front of the garage, she testified that Respondent’s improper installation of the patio may have caused drainage issues. Ms. Hayden did not consult the plans to see the proximity of the patio and the front of the garage. 19. Ms. Hayden also testified that even though the wall tile was not on Respondent’s contract, if it installed the tile, it would be liable for any deficiency in the tile. She also pointed out that, if S&R had included the cost of materials in its low bid, the bid would have been higher. Ms. Hayden also went through Investigator Melton’s jobsite inspection photographs[20] to testify that S&R’s bid apparently did not address all the deficiencies that Investigator Melton noted. 20. Complainant hired an architect to prepare plans and obtained all necessary permits for the addition.[21] Complainant testified that she provided a copy of the plans to Respondent and that she understood that it would perform all the work described on the plans. Complainant testified that she understood that Respondent would provide and install shelving and cabinets because they were on the plans, even though these items were not on Respondent’s bid or contract and were not specified on the plans. 21. Complainant was not asked to and did not explain why S&R’s bid and Bugle’s bid and contract did not include the cost of cabinets and other materials, but only the labor to install these items. 22. Mr. Arteaga testified that certain fixtures, such as cabinets, were shown but not specified on the plans. Because the cost of fixtures such as cabinets could vary widely, depending on quality, he did not include fixtures in his bid except as expressly noted. Instead, after Complainant selected the quality of cabinets she wanted, she could enter a contract with Respondent or another contractor for the purchase and/or installation of the cabinets or other fixtures. 23. Respondent submitted its own and its subcontractors’ estimates that provided the basis for the bid and contract amount after taxes were added, in relevant part as follows: $26,400 Framing $ 6,900 Drywall $23,400 Concrete $ 5,000 Window’s and Door’s $ 800 Garage $ 1,600 Insulation $ 4,000 Stucco $ 3,700 Paint $ 5,100 Electrical $ 4,900 [Plumbing] $ 2,800 Flooring $ 4,200 A/C $ 1,200 Siding

$90,000 + Tax[22]

Mr. Arteaga acknowledged that most of not all of Respondent’s subcontractors were unlicensed 24. Complainant did not submit change orders to establish the reasons for the difference between Bugle’s bid and contract and the amounts that she paid to Bugle. She explained that she had to pay more to Bugle because it determined that Respondent had installed the wrong electric panel and Bugle had to replace the electric panel. Complainant also acknowledged that Bugle’s bid and contract included an electrical surge protector, which was not included on Respondent’s contract or the plans. 25. Mr. Arteaga noted that the project had passed all of the City of Phoenix’ inspections, including electrical.[23] 26. Respondent’s attorney asked Complainant to mark all the items on Bugle’s estimate that were not on Respondent’s contract. Complainant marked out in full or part approximately fifteen of Bugle’s twenty-two enumerated items of work.[24] 27. Mr. Arteaga testified that Complainant hired directly a contractor to install the wall tile and that Respondent did not provide materials or labor for this work. 28. Complainant denied hiring any trades directly, although she acknowledged that she had paid some trades directly because, she said, Mr. Arteaga had instructed her to do so. Complainant did not include the payments to the other trades among the documents that she submitted with her complaint or claim to the Fund. 29. Respondent submitted a notarized statement from an unlicensed electrical subcontractor that Complainant had asked him to provide additional lighting and power that was not on the plans and had paid $1,200.00 to him directly, but that she still owed $1,300.00 for the work.[25] 30. Complainant acknowledged that Respondent had completed work beyond the scope described on its contract or the plans, including moving the water heater, installing different sized windows than what was shown on the plans, installing additional insulation in the original structure, and performing framing for a fireplace in the master bedroom, which was not shown on the plans. Complainant testified that she understood that Respondent would perform additional work according to her instructions even if the work was not on Respondent’s contract or the plans. Complainant testified that she understood that there would be no charge for this additional work and that there were no written or oral change orders. 31. Mr. Arteaga testified that Respondent performed substantial additional work or upgraded materials at Complainant’s request, but never had an opportunity to settle accounts with her before she filed the complaint with the Registrar. Respondent submitted a summary of additional work or expenses pursuant to Complainant’s oral change orders, including: 1. $750.00 to relocate the water heater, including $350.00 to the plumber, $190.00 for materials, and $210.00 for 6 hours labor; 2. $1,050.00 to reframe four windows, whose size Complainant changed, and to add to window openings at her request, including $210.00 for material and $840.00 for labor; 3. $1,576.58 to upgrade the windows, from a cost of $3,111.13 for the windows shown on the plans[26] to $4,687.71 for the windows that Complainant requested;[27] 4. $450.00 for framing the fireplace in the master bedroom that was not on the plans, but that Complainant requested to be added; 5. $900.00 for the cost of framing a dog shower in the laundry room to replace the utility sink shown on the plans, including $135.00 for materials and $765.00 for hours labor; and 6. $795.00 to remove insulation for the original house, including $760.00 for 9.5 hours of labor for two man and a $35.00 charge at the landfill.[28] 32. Respondent had a bond in the amount of $4,500.00 with RLI. Complainant testified that she had submitted a claim to the bond, but that the claim had been denied. 33. Respondent submitted a letter to Complainant from RLI’s claims adjustor, Patty St. George, dated September 5, 2018, stating in relevant part as follows: We are investigating this matter and contacting our Principal concerning your claim. In the meantime, enclosed please find a Proof of Claim that we require from you to support your claim. Please provide us with copies of all documents that support your claim and have not been previously furnished to us.[29]

34. Respondent also submitted an email from Ms. St. George to Respondent’s attorney, stating that RLI denied Complainant’s bond claim and closed the file because Complainant never provided a Proof of Claim.[30] CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[31] When the Registrar has calculated the amount of a Complainant’s compensable damages and proposed a payout from the Fund to which she is entitled, the calculation is a prima facie showing of the amount that the Complainant is entitled to recover as a payout from the Fund. The burden shifts to Respondent to establish that the Registrar’s calculations were erroneous or not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.[32] A proponent of a motion must establish grounds to support the motion.[33] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[34] 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.”[35] Respondent argued that Complainant’s claim to the Fund must be dismissed because it did not have an opportunity to inspect Bugle’s work. A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) provides as follows: The registrar may not issue a citation for failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner or in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards if either:

1. The contractor is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar.

2. The contractor's work has been subject to neglect, modification or abnormal use.

Although A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) gives a contractor a right to inspect his own work after a homeowner files a workmanship complaint with the Registrar, no statute provides a right to inspect another contractor’s repairs after the workmanship complaint has been adjudicated and the homeowner has filed a claim to the Fund. Therefore, Respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint because it was not afforded a right to inspect Bugle’s work lacks merit. A.R.S. § 32-1154(G) provides in relevant part as follows: Notwithstanding any other provisions in this chapter, if a contractor's license has been revoked or has been suspended as a result of an order to remedy a violation of this chapter, the registrar may order payment from the residential contractors' recovery fund to remedy the violation. The registrar shall serve the contractor with a notice setting forth the amount claimed or to be awarded. If the contractor contests the amount or propriety of the payment, the contractor shall respond within ten days of the date of service by requesting a hearing to determine the amount or propriety of the payment. . . .

A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B) describes the measure of damages that an eligible homeowner is entitled to recover from the Fund, in relevant part as follows: An award from the residential contractors' recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor's violation. Actual damages:

1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.

2. Must be established by bids supplied by or the value of work performed by a person that is licensed pursuant to this chapter if the person is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter.

For purposes of calculating a payout from the Fund, the Registrar must determine the cost of repairing the contractor’s defective work and completing the project according to the original contract, minus any portion of the contract price still owed to the original contractor.[36] The Registrar has a fiduciary duty to the Fund to preserve its assets and only to pay out amounts as authorized by A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B).[37] The fact that Respondent contracted beyond the scope of its drywall and framing licenses and hired unlicensed subcontractors to perform most of the work that was beyond the scope of its licenses does not vitiate the Registrar’s fiduciary duty to the Fund. Payouts from the Fund are meant to compensate homeowners, not to punish contractors. Nowhere in Respondent’s contract does it undertake to do all the work to build the addition pursuant to plans. Bugle’s, Silver Rock’s, and S&R’s requirements in their bids that Complainant would pay directly for cabinets and other fixtures bolsters Mr. Arteaga’s testimony that only the items specifically set forth in Respondent’s contract were included. Although Respondent’s bid and contract are not models of completeness or clarity, Complainant’s purported understanding that Respondent would construct the addition by performing all work described in the plans, as well as whatever additional work, upgrades, and changes that Complainant could wrangle at no additional charge is contradicted by Respondent’s contract, industry practice, and common sense. Complainant’s testimony was not credible. The Registrar’s role as a consumer protection agency does not mean that consumers have carte blanche to claim whatever they want for payouts from the Fund and that the Registrar should refrain from subjecting consumers’ claims to any scrutiny whatsoever. Ms. Hayden never compared the scope of work under Respondent’s contract and bid and the directive to the scope of work in Bugle’s contract and bid. It appears that Ms. Hayden relied mostly on Complainant’s self-serving statements to calculate a payout. Complainant made her claim to the Fund at least nine months after she hired Bugle.[38] Among the asserted reasons that she did not wait was a roof leak and that she had no HVAC system. Investigator Melton’s directive noted that the roof leak had been repaired. S&R provide an allowance of only $200.00 for HVAC work and Silver Rock provided no amount whatsoever. Even if Complainant needed to have some work performed to make her addition habitable, the evidence does not support her claim that an emergency required immediate action on the scope of Bugle’s contract and the missing change orders. Complainant’s testimony that Bugle needed to replace an electrical panel, costing $7,000.00 more for electrical work is undermined by the City of Phoenix having accepted the electrical work after inspection. S&R’s low bid of $33,055.67 included items that were not included in Respondent’s bid or contract, including the gutters ($800.00), master bathroom cabinets ($790.00), and the granite tops ($1,920.00). In addition, Complainant still owes Respondent $10,940.00. Unlicensed contractor’s bids cannot be used to calculate a homeowner’s compensable damages. However, Respondent established that it spent $1,576.58 to upgrade the windows on Complainant’s project at her request. A.R.S. § 32-1133.01(F) provides that, in an administrative claim for a payout from the Fund like the one Complainant makes here, “[a] claimant to the residential contractors’ recovery fund pursuant to this section must show that the claimant has proceeded against any existing bod covering the residential contractor.” Respondent established that Complainant failed to submit a Proof of Claim to RLI, despite being advised to do so, and that $4,250.00 would have been available from Respondent’s bond. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund shall pay $15,932.25 to Complainant Emily Groh.[39] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under A.R.S. § 32-1139(B), the Registrar shall charge $15,932.25, plus interest at a rate of ten percent a year, to Respondent A V S Framing and Drywall LLC’s License Nos. ROC 234047 and ROC 234048. 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, October 11, 2019.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Complainant attempted to present evidence of additional damages allegedly caused by Respondent’s poor work. Because these items of alleged workmanship deficiencies were not included in the initial complaint against Respondent that she filed with the Registrar, Complainant’s exhibit was not admitted. [2] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 1. [3] The Registrar’s Exhibit 2; Respondent’s Exhibit 1. [4] Respondent’s Exhibit 2. [5] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 4. [6] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 12. [7] The Registrar’s Exhibit 13. [8] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.” [9] A.A.C. R4-9-108 requires that “[a]ll work shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner” and that “[a]ll work shall be performed in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.” [10] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar.” [11] The Citation and the Registrar’s final order in the underlying workmanship complaint are not part of the record in this matter. The history of the final order is based on the Registrar’s and Respondent’s attorneys’ responses to the Administrative Law Judge’s questions. [12] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 5. [13] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 6. [14] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 8. [15] The Registrar’s Exhibit 3. [16] The Registrar’s Exhibit 7. [17] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 9. [18] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 10 [19] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 11 (Spreadsheet). [20] See Respondent’s Exhibit 15. [21] See Respondent’s Exhibit 3. [22] Respondent’s Exhibit 4. [23] See Respondent’s Exhibit 9. The project passed final inspection on July 3, 2019, after Bugle completed its work. The project passed rough electrical inspection on November 16, 2018. On March 6, 2018, the inspector noted that, at the pre-drywall inspection, “all the trades were in.” [24] See Respondent’s Exhibit 35. [25] See Respondent’s Exhibit 30. [26] See Respondent’s Exhibit 6. [27] See Respondent’s Exhibit 7. [28] See Respondent’s Exhibit 5. [29] Respondent’s Exhibit 32. [30] See Respondent’s Exhibit 33. [31] See 32-1101 et seq. [32] See A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [33] See A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(3). [34] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [35] Black’s Law Dictionary at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999). [36] See Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors, 241 Ariz. 102, 106, 384 P.3d 316, 320 (App. 2016). [37] See A.R.S. § 32-1134. [38] The record does not contain the date of the Registrar’s final order against Respondent. [39] $33,055.67 (S&R’s low bid) - $800.00 (installing gutters) - $790.00 (master bathroom cabinets) - $1,920.00 (granite tops) - $10,940.00 (amount owed Respondent) - $4,250.00 (available RLI bond) + $1,576.58 (windows upgrade) = $15,932.25.

-----------------------

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