ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2021A-04541-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-04-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Reva D. Griffith,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Ludwig The Handyman, LLC

License No. ROC 276132,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2021A-04541-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 14, 2022

APPEARANCES: Complainant Reva D. Griffith represented herself. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent Ludwig The Handyman, LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Ludwig The Handyman, LLC (Ludwig) holds license number

276132 issued the Registrar of Contractors (ROC).

2. On or about August 11, 2021, Ludwig and Complainant Reva D. Griffith entered into a residential construction contract wherein Ludwig would enclose

the sun room at Ms. Griffith’s home.

3. On or about August 17, 2021, Ludwig started work.

4. On or about August 26, 2021, Ludwig stopped work.

5. On or about September 13, 2021, the ROC received a complaint from

Ms. Griffith alleging poor workmanship on the part of Ludwig.

6. On October 20, 2021, ROC Investigator Jason Simpson conducted a job-site inspection. Investigator Simpson observed that did not include an estimated date of completion, information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the ROC, nor contact information for the ROC.

7. On November 24, 2021, the ROC issued a Directive to Ludwig. Through the Directive, the ROC ordered Ludwig to correct items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 13, 2021. The November 24, 2021 Directive provided in relevant part, as follows:

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means: The Respondent is to ensure that any and all required building permits are obtained from the Local Building Authorities prior to making corrections listed in this Directive. If the local jurisdiction finds corrective issues relating to the respondent’s work, the respondent will be required to correct those issues by appropriate means. The respondent is required to submit a copy of the approved inspection results to the ROC Investigator.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) 2 (b): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) 3 (b) : Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar, Namely R 4-9-108: (B)

A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 1: “Inferior framing nothing square/plumb” Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Framing not with in tolerance.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 2: “Improper window installation (no screws) 5 windows”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Windows need to be installed with tolerance of the ROC and manufacture standards.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 4: “door improperly installed”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. This Investigator observed door not completed and not installed properly.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 5: “improper cut block”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Observed wood block (lose/not secured) properly.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 6: “siding improper”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Siding installation not within ROC standards.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

8. Ludwig did not correct the items listed in the Directive by December 13, 2021.

9. On December 27, 2021, the ROC issued a Citation to Ludwig. Through the Citation, the ROC alleged that Ludwig may have violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 32-1154(A)(3),(12),(22); A.R.S. section 32-1158; Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-R9-108 (a) and (b).

10. Ludwig filed a timely answer to the complaint.

11. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

12. A hearing was held on March 14, 2022.

13. At hearing, Ms. Griffith testified on behalf of herself. Ms. Griffith explained that Ludwig performed poor work when it remodeled her home.

14. Investigator Simpson testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.

15. No one appeared at the hearing on behalf of Ludwig.

16. No one appeared on behalf of Ludwig at the hearing on May 12, 2021.

No one filed a request to appear telephonically on behalf of Main. Although the hearing did not start until approximately 1:15 p.m., no one appeared on behalf of Ludwig through an authorized member, officer, employee, or attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Ludwig did not present any evidence to defend its license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

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.

3. The Administrative Law Judge may consider ROC’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.

4. 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).

5. The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent failed to perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).

6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent 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).

7. The undisputed evidence established that the contract did not include a statement that the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A).

8. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1158(A).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend ROC License: No. 276132 held by Ludwig The Handyman, 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 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 April 1, 2022.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors