ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2021A-05107-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-10-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JoAnne Packus,

COMPLAINANT

US Veterans Construction, LLC

License No. ROC 318020,

RESPONDENT

No. 2021A-05107-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HEARING: September 20, 2022

APPEARANCES: Complainant JoAnne Packus appeared on her own behalf. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Jason Simpson appeared as a witness. Respondent US Veterans Construction, LLC did not appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

FINDINGS OF FACT

US Veterans Construction, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 318020 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about May 4, 2021, JoAnne Packus (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform remodeling work in Complainant’s home.

On or about October 9, 2021, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Jason Simpson. Investigator Simpson performed three jobsite inspections in this matter. The first jobsite inspection was on November 2, 2021. Investigator Simpson issued a Written Directive to Respondent on November 19, 2021. Thereafter, on November 21, 2021, Complainant filed an Addendum to the Complaint. Consequently, Investigator Simpson scheduled a second jobsite inspection on December 16, 2021, and issued a second Written Directive on January 12, 2022. Complainant filed a second addendum to the Complaint on January 24, 2022, and Investigator Simpson scheduled a third jobsite inspection on February 6, 2022. Investigator Simpson issued a third and final Written Directive on March 9, 2022, that incorporated all of Complainant’s Complaint items. Respondent was present at all three inspections. The March 9, 2022 Written Directive to Respondent provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. 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 April 4, 2022.

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

Complaint Item 2: “Trim boards need to be repainted and errors corrected. They had to be taken down after the first installation due to destruction done to the floors that were originally laid. They took a beating and not the same attention to detail. The corners not mitered as sharply and where the corners don't match up very well a think layer of caulking was placed to cover it up. Spliced pieces, gap where it doesn't touch the floor. Again poorly done and thick caulking.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

. . . Trim boards not with industry standards. Needs to be corrected.

Complaint Item 3: “Large gap (approx 1 inch) where the flooring and Threshold come together going out into the garage. Filled it in with almond caulking.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Not installed according to industry standards.

Complaint Item 5: “Pipes not centered under the kitchen sink so not easy access to the hot and cold shut off valves. Tubes all over under there with the reverse osmosis system. Not sure how to get in to change out the filters. They told me about the ones in the bathroom and I had them fixed. Didn't mention the ones under the kitchen sink. I would have liked to have had them set like that before the cabinets were pushed back when they had easy access.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Complaint Item 9: “Toe kick only going up part way so you can see the cabinet separation. Raw wood showing on the end. Will allow bugs to get in there.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Visible gaps between cabinets behind toe kick.

Complaint Item 11: “Fillers around the refrigerator need to be put in to hide the 2 x 4's holding up the cabinet and to make it look finished.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Complaint Item 12: “Trim boards need to be added around the pantries.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Complaint Item 13: “No finishing scribe molding down the sides of the cabints where they attach to the wall.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Complaint Item 14: “Hardware needs to be added to the cabinets that were placed above the refrigerator”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Complaint Item 18: “No metal rings on the pipes to make it look finished under the bathroom cabinets.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Complaint Item 19: “They cut the holes for the lights to larger. Scott told me several times he knew he had to repair that but just like the wall where the cabinet was taken down never came back to fix it.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Observed hole in ceiling. Complainant showed proof of existing condition before ceiling was painted. Respondent need to fix by appropriate means necessary.

Complaint Item 20: “Separation of cabinet next to sink visible screw showing.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Screw between cabinet and sink pulled apart. Contractor should make necessary repairs.

Reference Pictures:

Complaint Item 21: “Cabinet drawer installation under Counter Island.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. During JSI the Respondent took the cabinet out and the drawer mechanism attached to the drawer fell off. Respondent stated we would fix the issue.

Reference Pictures:

Complaint Item 23: “Flooring uneven, chipped tile and creaking noise.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Observed the floor is not in tolerance of the ROC workmanship standards or the proper installation per the manufacture instructions. Contractor should make necessary repair though out the residence within tolerance of the manufacture and workmanship standards.

Complaint Item 24: “Cabinet screws showing above shelving”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Observed two screws in cabinet left of range hood wood was split and the screws where showing. Respondent stated he would address this issue.

Reference Pictures:

Complaint Item 25: “Crowning around cabinets not installed.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Respondent stated it was in the contract.

Reference Pictures:

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 1: “Only half the pantriy drawer boxes that were supposed to be installed got installed. There were supposed to be 10 total. Matching in distance down each side. They decide to put in 5 on the one side and then they don't want to put in the others unless I pay them $1000.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is NOT verified. Conditions described are present, however; they cannot be verified as the responsibility of this respondent. No evidence to prove drawers to be installed in cabinets.

Complaint Item 4: “No filler beside the vanity in the main bathroom. ”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), however; the respondent did agree to make improvements.

Complaint Item 6: “Four shelves to be placed in the bedroom closet due to me losing the shelves when the wall was moved.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), however; the respondent did agree to make improvements.

Complaint Item 7: “Wood finish carpenty done poorly on the peninsula. Raw wood showing. No mitered edges on the corners, Chipped and primer splintered”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is NOT verified. Conditions described are present, however; they cannot be verified as the responsibility of this respondent.

Complaint Item 8: “Add hinge restricter. Placed on the wrong door so they said if I bought another one they would install it. I have purchased another set to go up.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), however; the respondent did agree to make improvements.

Complaint Item 10: “Wall needs repair where the old cabinet was removed. Discolored and face of sheetrock torn. I actually had to have it repaired and painted and have asked for a reciept for that part of the job so I can take it off what I owe them. The painters were here to paint my interior and I wasn't going to to leave that part not completed.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified. Modified

All errors in original.

Following the deadline in the March 9, 2022 Written Directive, Investigator Simpson contacted Complainant and was informed that Respondent had performed some corrective work, however, not all work was complete.

Investigator Simpson conducted a Compliance Inspection on April 18, 2022. Respondent was present at the Compliance Inspection. Investigator Simpson’s Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes indicate the following:

Compliance Jobsite Inspection General Notes: Respondent did not complete written directive. This has been an ongoing case with multiple addendum adjustments by the Complainant. Scheduling and communication issue between both parties. This Compliance Inspection was only to evaluate the current conditions of items requiring corrective work as stated on the Directive. Those items are listed below.

Compliance Findings: The respondent has not taken appropriate corrective action to comply with the Directive.

As stated on Directive: “Trim boards need to be repainted and errors corrected. They had to be taken down after the first installation due to destruction done to the floors that were originally laid. They took a beating and not the same attention to detail. The corners not mitered as sharply and where the corners don't match up very well a think layer of caulking was placed to cover it up. Spliced pieces, gap where it doesn't touch the floor. Again poorly done and thick caulking.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has been corrected.

As stated on Directive: “Large gap (approx 1 inch) where the flooring and Threshold come together going out into the garage. Filled it in with almond caulking.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Not installed according to industry standards.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

As stated on Directive: “Pipes not centered under the kitchen sink so not easy access to the hot and cold shut off valves. Tubes all over under there with the reverse osmosis system. Not sure how to get in to change out the filters. They told me about the ones in the bathroom and I had them fixed. Didn't mention the ones under the kitchen sink. I would have liked to have had them set like that before the cabinets were pushed back when they had easy access.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

As stated on Directive: “Toe kick only going up part way so you can see the cabinet separation. Raw wood showing on the end. Will allow bugs to get in there.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Visible gaps between cabinets behind toe kick.

Investigator’s Observation Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has been corrected.

As stated on Directive: “Fillers around the refrigerator need to be put in to hide the 2 x 4's holding up the cabinet and to make it look finished.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has been corrected.

As stated on Directive: “Trim boards need to be added around the pantries.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has been corrected.

As stated on Directive: “No finishing scribe molding down the sides of the cabints where they attach to the wall.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has been corrected.

As stated on Directive: “No metal rings on the pipes to make it look finished under the bathroom cabinets.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

As stated on Directive: “Hardware needs to be added to the cabinets that were placed above the refrigerator”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

As stated on Directive: “They cut the holes for the lights to larger. Scott told me several times he knew he had to repair that but just like the wall where the cabinet was taken down never came back to fix it.”

Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Observed hole in ceiling. Complainant showed proof of existing condition before ceiling was painted. Respondent need to fix by appropriate means necessary.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

As stated on Directive: “Separation of cabinet next to sink visible screw showing.”

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Screw between cabinet and sink pulled apart. Contractor should make necessary repairs.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has been corrected.

As stated on Directive: “Cabinet drawer installation under Counter Island.”

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

As stated on Directive: “Flooring uneven, chipped tile and creaking noise.”

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

As stated on Directive: “Cabinet screws showing above shelving”

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.

As stated on Directive: “Crowning around cabinets not installed.

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is verified as the responsibility of the respondent. Respondent stated it was in the contract.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has been corrected.

In additional to the allegations in the complaint; the following Warning Letters were issued:

Warning Letter: Elements of a Contract.

Investigator’s Observation: No correction has been given to the ROC at this time.

All errors in original.

Thereafter, Investigator Simpson forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, 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 hearing of this matter was initially scheduled to convene on July 15, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. However, on July 13, 2022, Respondent filed a request for continuance due to health related reasons. On July 15, 2022, a Minute Entry Granting Continuance and Setting Hearing Via Google Meet was issued to the parties at their respective email addresses of record. The Minute Entry advised the parties of the continued hearing date and time of September 20, 2022, at 1:00 p.m., and provided the Google Meet link for appearance by video or phone.

On the date and at the time set for continued hearing, Complainant appeared on her own behalf. Investigator Simpson was also present. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Simpson explained the scope of work undertaken by Respondent. Investigator Simpson testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directives and the Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator Simpson testified that Respondent failed to comply with the Written Directive.

Investigator Simpson testified that he issued a warning letter to Respondent because Respondent’s contract documents failed to contain a completion date and information concerning a homeowner’s right to file a written complaint with the Registrar.

Complainant concurred with Investigator Simpson’s testimony and emphasized Respondent’s lack of professionalism.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 4, 2022. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 318020 was first issued on February 22, 2018, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

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(a).

The evidence established that Respondent’s contract documents did not contain all nine required elements. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).

The evidence established that Respondent did not 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 suspend Respondent’s License No. 318020 for a period of three (3) days.

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 (30) 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.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine (9) terms required by A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) within thirty (30) days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, October 4, 2022.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

JoAnne Packus

2848 E Isabella Ave

Mesa, AZ 85204

[email redacted]

US Veterans Construction LLC

612 W. Honeysuckle Dr.

Chandler, AZ 85248

[email redacted]

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000By Miranda Alvarez

Legal Secretary