ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2020A-04439-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2021-02-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Megan Elizabeth Hunsen,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Phx Renovations, LLC,

License No. 300467,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2020A-04439-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 12, 2021

APPEARANCES: Complainant Megan Elizabeth Hunsen appeared on behalf of herself. Sean Pollard appeared on behalf of Respondent Phx Renovations, LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Respondent Phx Renovations, LLC (Phx Renovations) holds license number

300467 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

Sean Pollard is the qualifying party for Phx Renovations.

On or about July 3, 2020, Complainant Megan Elizabeth Hunsen and

Phx Renovations entered into a contract wherein Phx Renovations agreed to remodel Ms. Hunsen’s home for 26,505.65.

On or about July 8, 2020, Phx Renovations started work.

On or about September 9, 2020, Phx Renovations stopped work.

On or about September 15, 2020, the Registrar received a complaint from Ms.

Hunsen alleging poor work and abandonment on the part of Phx Renovations.

On or about October 14, 2020, Registrar Investigator Wes Ellington conducted a

job site inspection.

On or about October 16, 2020, the Registrar issued a Directive to Phx

Renovations requiring that Phx Renovations correct complaint items 1 through 3 by November 17, 2020. Investigator Ellington concluded that complaint items 4 and 5 were beyond the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The October 16, 2020 Directive provided, in relevant part, as follows:

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item 1: Broken TV Stand. Was told the furniture store would be here 09/14, never heard from anyone.

Investigator’s Observation: The entertainment center has a top bridge that has been damaged. Since the respondent was not present at the JSI, I called later and talked to Respondent Sean Pollard who confirmed that the tile installers had damaged the entertainment center while moving it. He added that he is working with the subcontractor to have the broken item replaced. This damage will need to be corrected by the respondent.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 2: 1st floor remodel was started, but not finished.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The respondent will need to finish the job as per contract. The exterior door to the patio has been replaced, but does not meet minimum workmanship standards. There is a very large gap between the door and the jamb. The trim on the outside is warped with uneven miter cuts, and unprofessionally caulked. The inside door trim is poorly installed with uneven cuts and unprofessionally caulked. There is a gap between the edge of the threshold and the flooring. Drywall is unfinished. Cabinet crown molding is missing. Baseboard needs to be finished. Hall bathroom is incomplete. These items as well as others will need to be corrected by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A)(1) Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for

the abandonment or refusal.

Complaint Item 3: Installation of incorrect cabinets and poor installation.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The cabinet doors do not match the drawer facings. They are a completely different style and need to be matched as requested by the complainant. Furthermore, the doors and drawer facings should be aligned to each other.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Phx Renovations did not correct the items listed in the Directive by November

17, 2020.

On or about November 25, 2020, the Registrar issued a Citation against

the license of Phx Renovations. Through the Citation, the Registrar alleged that Phx Renovations may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22). 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 Phx Renovations.

Phx Renovations filed a timely answer to the Citation.

On January 13, 2021, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the

matter for hearing on February 12, 2021. The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the charges made in the Citation and Complaint.

A hearing was held on February 12, 2021.

At hearing, Ms. Hunsen testified on behalf of herself. Mr. Pollard testified on

behalf of Phx Renovations. Investigator Ellington testified regarding his investigation of the complaint and the issuance of the Directive. Investigator Ellington explained that Phx Renovations failed to complete the job. Ms. Hunsen testified that Phx Renovations performed poor work and failed to complete the home remodeling project. Mr. Pollard testified that he agreed with most of Ms. Hunsen’s testimony. Mr. Pollard explained that he experienced trouble with the subcontractors and workers that he hired for the project.

Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as reflected

on the Registrar’s public website on February 19, 2021. Such prior License record shows that Respondent’s license was first issued on November 10, 2015, and is active. Such prior License record shows that one complaint resulted in discipline against Respondent’s license. Such prior License record shows that three complaints were resolved or settled by Respondent or withdrawn by the complainant after the issuance of a corrective work order or formal citation.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1101 et seq.

2. Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section

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 section 5 (1960).

3. The undisputed evidence established that Phx Renovations abandoned the contract, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1).

4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Phx Renovations failed to

correct the items listed in 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 suspend License No. 300467 of Phx Renovations, LLC, for three calendar 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 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.

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.

Done this day, February 19, 2021.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors