ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2020A-01153-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2020-08-17
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Dennis C. Langfeldt,
COMPLAINANT
v.
New Legacy Building and Design Incorporated,
License No. ROC 199643,
RESPONDENT
No. 2020A-01153-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DECISION
HEARING: August 10, 2020
APPEARANCES: Complainant Dennis C. Langfeldt appeared on his own behalf. Respondent New Legacy Building and Design Incorporated failed to appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Dennis Bierma was present.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
FINDINGS OF FACT
New Legacy Building and Design Incorporated (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 199643 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about March 27, 2019, Dennis C. Langfeldt (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for a complete remodel and addition to his home.
On or about March 7, 2020, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work and abandonment with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Dennis Bierma. A jobsite inspection was scheduled for April 28, 2020. Complainant was present for the inspection. Respondent did not attend. At the inspection, Complainant added seven items to the Complaint. Investigator Bierma allowed Complainant to add the addendum items, numbers 31 through 37, due to Respondent having informed Complainant via email on March 3, 2020, that Respondent was no longer in business and would not be able to complete the project.
After the jobsite inspection, on April 30, 2020, Investigator Bierma issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:
After investigation, the Registrar has verified that your work fails to meet minimum workmanship standards. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); A.A.C. R4-9-108. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 22, 2020.
RESTRICTIONS
You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.
If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: “Per spec, contractor didn’t install glass panel for hallway bath.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, plans, specifications, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
. . . .
Complaint Item 2: “Per spec, contractor didn’t install shelves in the master bath shower.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, plans, specifications, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
. . . .
Complaint Item 3: “Per spec, contractor didn’t install solid one panel interior doors but instead used hollow two panel doors.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, plans, specifications, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
. . . .
Complaint Item 5: “Contractor mis-measured kitchen laundry room space, so doorframe now sticks out into kitchen (workmanship).”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: Respondent shall correct this item by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item 6: “Contractor set footings before having property survey done, so we had to sacrifice square footage for casita addition and pay more in architect costs.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: Respondent shall correct and complete project per original contract agreement, plans, specifications, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
. . . .
Complaint Item 7: “Per spec, contractor failed to install stairs to access newly built rooftop deck.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: Respondent shall correct and complete project per original contract agreement, plans, specifications, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
. . . .
Complaint Item 10: “Per spec, contractor failed to paint garage door and two new exterior doors.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: The paint on the interior side of the two new exterior doors shall be completed per agreement.
. . . .
Complaint Item 11: “Per spec, contractor failed to install backsplash in 3 bathrooms.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: Respondent shall correct and complete project per original contract agreement, plans, specifications, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
. . . .
Complaint Item 21: “Drywall crack in casita bedroom by light switch (workmanship).”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item still needs to be completed.
. . . .
Complaint Item 23: “Contractor failed to use nail putty on all interior door frames so nails are visible (workmanship).”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item still needs to be completed.
. . . .
Complaint Item 24: “New exterior paint contractor applied is peeling in spots.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item needs to be corrected and completed.
. . . .
Complaint Item 25: “Drywall Line/mark on wall behind door in small bedroom (workmanship).”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item needs to be corrected and completed.
. . . .
Complaint Item 26: “Rebar is sticking through and overall cement work is unprofessional in front NW corner of new addition (workmanship).”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: Unable to verify rebar sticking through, however; cement work shall be corrected by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item 28: “Contractor failed to install new lock on kitchen garage door.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item needs to be corrected and completed.
. . . .
Complaint Item 31: “Crack in porch.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item needs to be corrected and completed.
. . . .
Complaint Item 32: “Carpet transitions.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item needs to be corrected and completed.
. . . .
Complaint Item 33: “Baseboards in bedrooms.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item shall be corrected by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item 34: “Crack in living room ceiling.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item shall be corrected by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item 35: “Shower tile in bathroom.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item shall be corrected by appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item 36: “Glass shelves in guest bathroom shower.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, plans, specifications, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.
. . . .
Complaint Item 37: “Master bedroom French door installed wrong.”
Investigator’s Observation: Verified: This item shall be corrected by appropriate means.
. . . .
After the deadline in the Written Directive expired, Investigator Bierma was notified by Complainant that no corrective work had been performed.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing on August 10, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. Subsequent to the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order converting the hearing to video-conference or telephonic. That Order was sent to Respondent’s email address of record.
A hearing was held on August 10, 2020. Complainant testified on his own behalf. Administrative Notice was taken of the Agency Record. Although the start of the hearing was delayed, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Investigator Bierma testified that because no corrective work had been done, he did not perform a compliance inspection or a prehearing inspection. Investigator Bierma further testified that half of the work performed by Respondent was not completed per contract and half of the work that was performed was deficient and in need of correction.
Complainant testified regarding his contract with Respondent and the costs associated therewith. Complainant further testified that on March 3, 2020, he received an email from Respondent stating that Respondent was unable to complete the project. Complainant asserted that Respondent did not follow design specifications.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 14, 2020. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 199643 was first issued on September 22, 2004, and is revoked. Such prior License record also reflects that there are three open complaints, including the instant Complaint, and five prior complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s License.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “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).
The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108.
The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 199643.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s License, effective on such deadline date. No future License shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent 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 40 days from the date of that certification.
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000Done this day, August 17, 2020.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham, Director
Registrar of Contractors
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000