ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2021A-03736-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2021-11-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Copperstate Curb Form Rental, LLC,

COMPLAINANT

Super Handyman Service Phoenix AZ, LLC

DBA: SHS Services

License No. ROC 288387,

RESPONDENT

No. 2021A-03736-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HEARING: October 21, 2021

APPEARANCES: Bradleigh Baker appeared on behalf of Complainant Copperstate Curb Form Rental, LLC. Jeremy Amendt appeared on behalf of Respondent Super Handyman Service Phoenix AZ, LLC, doing business as SHS Services.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

FINDINGS OF FACT

Super Handyman Service Phoenix AZ, LLC, doing business as SHS Services (“Respondent”), is the holder of License No. 288387, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Jeremy Amendt is Respondent’s qualifying party.

On or about August 5, 2021, Copperstate Curb Form Rental, LLC (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $2,250.19 for the rental of forms for the pouring of concrete.

On August 18, 2021, the Registrar issued a Citation charging Respondent with the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10). Respondent timely filed an Answer to the Complaint.

A Notice of Hearing was issued on September 8, 2021, advising the parties that a hearing would convene before the Office of Administrative Hearings on October 21, 2021. On the date and time set for hearing, Bradleigh Baker appeared on behalf of Complainant. Jeremy Amendt appeared on behalf of Respondent.

Mr. Baker testified that on May 27, 2021, Respondent rented equipment from Complainant on a weekly basis, and that he verbally informed Respondent of the weekly rental prices per piece of equipment, and that prices were based on the quantities and sizes rented. Mr. Baker testified that he had advised Mr. Amendt that the cost of renting the specified equipment would be approximately $400.00 per week. Mr. Baker asserted that he had no way of knowing how many weeks Respondent would utilize the equipment, and that it is his practice to set forth the time frames for rentals in the written contract after the equipment is actually returned. Once the equipment is returned, Mr. Baker inputs the amount of time the equipment was rented and issues the invoice. In this case, Mr. Baker completed the contract form after Respondent failed to pay for or return the equipment one month after renting it.

Mr. Baker sent Mr. Amendt text messages regarding the equipment and payment on June 29, 2021, July 2, 2021, and July 9, 2021. Mr. Amendt did not respond to those text messages. Thereafter, Complainant sent an invoice to Respondent in the amount of $2,250.19 for one month of rental charges. Respondent paid Complainant $300.00 and did not return the equipment until October 12, 2021, four and a half months after renting it.

Mr. Baker testified that Complainant will not rent equipment to an individual or entity that is not a licensed contractor, as licensure is a prerequisite to renting from Complainant. Mr. Amendt signed a contract form that contained Respondent’s business name, SHS Services, as well as Respondent’s license number. Therefore, Complainant rented equipment to Respondent, not Mr. Amendt personally.

Mr. Amendt testified that he did not respond to Mr. Baker’s text messages because Mr. Baker “told him it would be $300.00 to $400.00 and he could keep them as long as he needed.” However, Mr. Amendt also testified that Mr. Baker “did not tell him how much it would cost.” Mr. Amendt testified that he did not respond to the text messages because he “still needed them.” Mr. Amendt also contended that he did not rent the forms in the capacity of a contractor because he used them to construct a garage at his home for his personal use. However, Mr. Amendt also testified that Respondent’s license number was listed on the contract because Complainant “said he had to give his ROC license number in order to rent.”

Mr. Amendt testified that it was his belief that Complainant would charge Respondent $300.00 for the rental of the equipment regardless of how long Respondent had possession of the equipment. Mr. Amendt testified that he “assumed” that Complainant was aware that Respondent would need the equipment for more than one week, and that Complainant would not charge for more than a week. The Administrative Law Judge finds Mr. Amendt’s testimony to be disingenuous.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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).

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license:

Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

The credible evidence established that Complainant rented equipment to Respondent on a weekly basis and that Respondent only paid Complainant $300.00, representing approximately one rental week. The credible evidence established that Complainant only charged Respondent for one month of rental fees, notwithstanding that Respondent had possession of the equipment from May 27, 2021 through October 12, 2021. Respondent failed to pay Complainant the remaining balance of $1,950.19.

Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant. The only “defense” that Respondent provided was that he used the equipment for a personal project and not in the capacity of a contractor. However, the credible evidence established that Respondent contracted for the rental of the equipment, as Respondent’s name and license number appear on the contract, and Complainant would not have rented the equipment to Respondent if Respondent was not a licensed contractor.

The undersigned Administrative Law Judge does not find Respondent’s argument persuasive. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent rented the equipment in its capacity as a licensed contractor.

Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $1,950.19 for materials rented in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License No. 288387 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $1,950.19 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $1,950.19 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case No. 2021-03736.

In the event of certification of this Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of the certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, November 5, 2021.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000