ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2020A-03047-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2020-12-07
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Dilworth Carlos Brinton Jr.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Craven Construction LLC,
License No. ROC 311721, 315169,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2020A-03047-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020
APPEARANCES: Roger C. Decker, Esq. appeared on behalf of Complainant Dilworth Carlos Brinton, Jr. Randy Craven appeared on behalf of Respondent Craven Construction, LLC (Craven).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Craven holds license numbers 311721 and 315169, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
2. Craven’s qualifying party is Randy Craven.
3. On or about May 15, 2020, Complainant Dilworth Carlos Brinton, Jr. and Craven entered into an agreement wherein Craven agreed to re-roof Mr. Brinton Jr.’s home. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 116-117. The re-roof project included the entire removal of Mr. Brinton Jr.’s existing roof. See id.
4. On May 20, 2020, Craven started work on Mr. Brinton Jr.’s home.
5. On June 15, 2020, Craven stopped work on Mr. Brinton Jr.’s home.
6. On or about June 23, 2020, the Registrar received a complaint from
Mr. Brinton Jr. alleging poor workmanship on the part of Craven. Mr. Brinton Jr. listed nine complaint items. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 116 –117, and 59-65.
7. On or about July 13, 2020, Investigator Steve Philpott conducted a job-site investigation regarding the complaint. Investigator Philpott verified complaint items 1 through 8. Investigator Philpot’s jobsite inspection notes provided, in relevant part, as follows:
....................
Compliance Item: 1 - 1. On May 15 signed an estimate with Craven Const. to have roof on ranch cabin in Parks AZ repaired. Start May 20 Finish May 28. Paid one half of money ($13,750). I have to be on site to let them in. Started on May 20 and 21 Came back on Jun 12 and 13. They did not finish. They came back on Jun 15 to finish. Cut fence to get in to work since I could not be present. Call afternoon jun 15 Want money next day before I can inspect job. Son goes to site and takes pictures. Unfinished work Ridge cap not sealed to each other or to roof. Underlayment exposed to weather and animals. End caps not sealed on top, side or bottom against elements. No proper ridge or end cap on porch Does not appeared to be sealed against weather between house and garage. Flashing not sealed To each other pieces and not sealed to roof except by screws. In places up to 1⁄4 inch gap between flashing and roof, not sealed. Scratches in metal roof said would touch up, not done & no paint Left for us to do it. No flashing around electrical post through roof. We provided flashing for Heater exit pipe but only sealed with calk to roof. Did not pick up all nails and trash. We had Contest at family reunion to pick up nails and metal. Have tried to talk to Randy Craven about Negotiation to his work to settle. Sent him 21 pages with pictures of defects. He said would only Fix endcaps to seal. Says be only contracted for ‘barn roof’ not
residential roof. All I find on Internet shows ridge caps being sealed to each other and to roof. Bunger Steel (where he got Steel for roof) shows sealing of ridge cap to each other (ends) & to roof to seal. I offered to have ROC settle our dispute as
neutral 3rd party. He swore and said he would take no shit from me or my son (an inspector for Phoenix engineering firm). Demanded balance of money by Jun 24 or will have attorney sue me for costs and interest. Says I should not waste his or my time by going to ROC. Now says I am denying him from property so he can fix end caps. I have sent him dates I am available for him to have access to property
with no response. If I fix deficients in roof will it void 10 yr warranty he gives but will not show to me? I am asking for inspector from ROC to look at estimate I signed and work to see if he still needs to finish up work by sealing seams and or
ridge caps. I will settle with your judgement. Please contact me Dilworth Brinton Jr trustee for Real Estate Holding Trust 2568 N. Spring Valley Rd. in Parks, AZ. My cell 480 890 1590 e-mail [email redacted]
....................
Compliance Item: 2 - Definitions of a proper Ridge Cap on a metal roof. All of the definitions we looked at, including the instruction installment from the Bunger Steel company (in Phoenix) from which the roof material was purchased,
and from the definitions on the internet including the Dictionary of Architecture and Landscaping Architecture define or show that a Ridge Cap on a metal roof is:
A.) is sealed to each piece and (butt or lap joints)
B.) is sealed to the roof deck materials.
The ridge cap now installed has screws to join the pieces of the ridge cap into a lap join AND The ridge cap is NOT sealed to the deck of the roof, but rather is open to the
weather and animals (1 1⁄4 inch space). You can look at the ridge cap and roof deck and see the white fiberglass material under layer. According to what we have seen and read, these open spaces should be sealed (i.e. water, snow, weather and
animal proof.)
We would like you to determine if the roofer must seal these openings between the ridge cap and the roof deck to have a proper ridge cap. Usually this is done with some type of foam or plastic. When I spoke to him on Monday, he told me that their work was standard an acceptable. That we had ordered a ‘barn roof’ (first time he mentioned this word) on our house and not what he calls a ‘fully sealed roof’. The visible white
underlayer is sufficient to last against rain, snow and animals for the 10 years of the warranty on the roof.
....................
Compliance Item: 3 - The end caps on the ridge cap are not closed in the top, side, front or bottom. They are open such that rain, snow, wind and animals ca go under the ridge cap and run the length of the ridge cap. We would like to have you rule that the ridge cap and caps should be sealed both at
any lap joints and also to the roof deck to seal from water, snow, weather and animals. We would you like to rule that a proper END CAP needs to be put on the exposed end of the ridge cap to seal out water, snow, weather and animals.
We would like you to rule that all end caps need to be completely sealed.
....................
Compliance Item: 4 - On the roof over the porch, the ridge cap is only 8 inches wide (4 inches each side) and cut from a sheet of the roofing (steel) material. It is folded into a shallow “U” shape and put over the ridge line. It does match the ridge
cap on the rest of the roof which was specifically made as a ridge cap (pieces). It does not extend enough to completely cover the white underlayer on the roof (under the steel roofing materials). It is not put on evenly as at the end cap 2 inches are on one side and 4 inches are on the other side. At the end, it is not sealed to keep water, snow, weather or animals out.
We would like you to rule that this is NOT a correct ridge cap and should be replaced the type of ridge cap shown in the materials catalogue form Bunger Steel (or similar).
We would like you to rule that the proper ridge can needs to be sealed at all lap joints and to the roof deck to cover the underlaying cover.
....................
Compliance Item: 5 - The joints between the roof deck materials and the flashing over the fascia are only screwed together instead of sealed to water, snow, weather and animals.
We would like you rule that these joint be sealed with some type of adhesive to water and snow proof these joints
....................
Compliance Item: 6 - - Joints between the roof and the walls are not sealed or weather proof. They seem to be butt joints (on the porch to the house and the garage to the house.)
We would like you to rule that these joints be sealed to water, snow and weather proof these joints.
....................
Compliance Item: 7 - The roofing materials at the ‘downslope’ end of the roof is also open.
We would like you to rule that these holes should be sealed
....................
Compliance Item: 8 - There was no flashing around the electrical pole through the roof into the house, it was simply calked heavely with no flashing.
....................
Compliance Item: 9 - The roofer did not pick up all of the ‘construction trash’. This was pieces of pieces cut from the roof when it was trimmed, nails and metal scraps from the dirt drive way.
We do not need you to rule on this as the next group using the house had the children pick up the nails and trash as a game.
8. At the jobsite inspection, Investigator Philpott concluded that complaint item 9 was corrected by others prior to the inspection.
9. On or about July 17, 2020, the Registrar issued a Directive to Craven. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 69-77. Through the Directive, the Registrar ordered Craven to correct Complaint Items 1 through 8 by appropriate means, prior to 5:00 p.m. on August 17, 2020. The July 17, 2020 Directive included specific information regarding permits required for the project. The July 17, 2020 Directive provided, in relevant part, as follows:
Note: Permits were not obtained for this project as required by the
Coconino County Building Departments: On or about 7/16/2020 @ 2:45PM: Called Coconino County Building department and spoke to Jesse Newton, CBO - Lead Plans Examiner - 928-679-8859. Confirmed that permits are required for this project. Prior to any work beginning all applicable permits shall be obtained. Unpermitted work shall be inspected by the local building inspector and any building code deficiencies identified or code violations caused by the Respondent shall be corrected. All required inspections shall be scheduled and passed. Completed project must comply with original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufactures installation instructions.
..................................
Complaint Item 1:
..................................
Investigator’s Observation: Permits for this project were not obtained as required by the Coconino County Building Departments. Prior to any work beginning all applicable permits shall be obtained. Unpermitted work shall be inspected by the local building inspector and any building code deficiencies identified or code violations caused by the Respondent shall be corrected. All required inspections shall be scheduled and passed. Completed project must comply with original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufactures installation instructions.
10. Craven did not comply with the Directive by August 17, 2020.
11. On or about August 18, 2020, Investigator Philpott conducted a compliance jobsite inspection. Investigator Philpott observed that Craven had not corrected the items listed in the Directive.
12. On August 24, 2020, the Registrar issued a Citation against Craven’s license. Through the Citation, the Registrar alleged that Craven may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b); violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(3) (specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code section R4-9-108(a) and (b); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).
13. The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke the license of Craven.
14. Craven filed a timely answer to the Citation.
15. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
16. On September 21, 2020, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on October 23, 2020, by the OAH in Phoenix, Arizona. The hearing did not conclude on October 23, 2020. The matter was set for a further hearing on November 16, 2020.
17. A hearing was conducted on October 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020.
18. Mr. Brinton Jr. testified on behalf of himself. Randy Craven testified on behalf of Craven.
19. Mr. Brinton Jr. explained that Craven performed poor work when it performed the re-roof project. Mr. Brinton Jr. stated that Craven left gaps between the flashing and the roof.
20. Randy Craven asserted Craven completed the items listed on the contract and that Craven’s work met minimum workmanship standards.
21. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 7, 2020. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License
No. 311721 was first issued on February 21, 2017, and is current. Such prior License record also reflects that there is one open complaint against License No. 311721, and one complaint that resulted in discipline against License No. 311721. Such prior License record reflects that one complaint against License No. 311721 was resolved or settled by Respondent or withdrawn by the complainant after issuance of a corrective work or formal citation. Such prior License record reflects that License No. 315169 was issued on July 31, 2017 and one complaint resulted in discipline against License No. 315169.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
section 32-1154(A).
2. The expired status of Vallarta’s license does not deprive Complainant of its right to prosecute its complaint against Deluxe Home or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
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).
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the Registrar’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not
obtain the required permits for project, which is a violation of of A.A.C. R4-9-108(b), and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(2)(a).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform
the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3).
7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend License No. 311721 and License No. 315169 issued to Craven Construction, LLC, for three days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
Done this day, December 7, 2020.
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.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham, Director
Registrar of Contractors