ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2022A-01802-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-12-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Christian Tait,

COMPLAINANT

Revolution Home Remodeling LLC

License No. ROC 334355,

RESPONDENT

No. 2022A-01802-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 29, 2022

APPEARANCES: Complainant Christian Tait appeared via Google Meet on his own behalf. Joe Cardona and Dominic Monaco appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent Revolution Home Remodeling LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Steve Klein appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Revolution Home Remodeling LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 334355 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about February 4, 2022, Complainant agreed to have Respondent install roofing around his house. The total cost was to be $12,096.27.

On or about March 7, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint containing fourteen items against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steve Klein. The jobsite inspection was performed on May 3, 2022.

Investigator Klein then issued a written directive on or about May 3, 2022.

On or about June 10, 2022, Complainant filed an amended complaint, and a jobsite inspection was held on August 11, 2022.

On August 12, 2022, Investigator Klein issued an Amended Written Directive to Respondent. that 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 September 12, 2022.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint #2 Flashing not all around roof

Inspector’s Observation: Complainant points out wavy and pieced together dripedge flashing on the sides and front of the home. My opinion is the drip-edge should be consistently straight without buckling and waviness. In addition, full pieces should be used as much as possible with a minimum amount of splicing.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint #4 Missing shingles in some areas

Inspector’s Observation: Complainant points out exposed nails on the ridge end shingle.

• Exposed nails should be sealed.

Complaint #5 Shingles cut uneven

Inspector’s Observation: Complainant points out the uneven / rough cut shingles on the side of the home.

• My opinion is the shingles should overlap the drip-edge evenly with an approximate overlap of 1⁄2” inch.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint # 11 Holes in areas for water to get in

Inspector’s Observation: This item is on the rear of the home. In between the two inspections, there were roof leaks. The Respondent stated he would remove and replace the rear portion on the home.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint # 14 Drywall damage

Inspector’s Observation Verified damage ceilings in the kitchen area and bath.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint #4 Edge flashing installed incorrectly with reverse laps, short laps, nailed incorrectly, and short pieces. I was told this would be fixed from the last inspection.

Inspector’s Observation: I verified the drip edge overlap was reversed on the south side, poor splicing on the front, poor cuts over the fascia and wavy on the north side.

Complaint #18 Multiple areas of edge flashing installed directly to sheathing with lack of underlayment. Underlayment should go under flashing to give protection from leaks.

Inspector’s Observation: This item is on the rear of the home. In between the two inspections, there were roof leaks. The Respondent stated he would remove and replace the rear portion on the home.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint #20 Open cut shingle penetration at HVAC stand. This was the repair requested at inspection and I believe it's not fixed if anything has a higher chance of leak.

Inspector’s Observation: This item is on the rear of the home. In between the two inspections, there were roof leaks. The Respondent stated he would remove and replace the rear portion on the home.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint # 22 Lack of step flashing or L-flashing at small eyebrows when meeting fascia boards below the north west valley backside of home. I was told they were going to cover in the first inspection. With filler and or flashing.

Inspector’s Observation: This item is on the rear of the home. In between the two inspections there were roof leaks. The Respondent stated he would remove and replace the rear portion on the home.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint # 23 Shingles at rake edges cut short exposing excessive amounts of edge flashing leaving little to no room for protection. Was told this would be fixed in the last inspection.

Inspector’s Observation: This item is on the rear of the home. In between the two inspections, there were roof leaks. The Respondent stated he would remove and replace the rear portion on the home.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint #24 Bottom of shingle decks have uneven shingle to edge flashing, areas from zero overhang to 1.5 inches. Was told this would be fixed on the last inspection they only fixed one area.

Inspector’s Observation: This item is on the rear of the home. In between the two inspections, there were roof leaks. The Respondent stated he would remove and replace the rear portion on the home.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint #25 One shingle above foam deck tie-in is lacking mastic or adhesive. I assume this was done from time it was fixed after inspection

Inspector’s Observation: This item is on the rear of the home. In between the two inspections, there were roof leaks. The Respondent stated he would remove and replace the rear portion on the home.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint #26 Exposed sheathing in two areas of shingle roofing. One at foam & shingle tie-in, and another at HVAC.

Inspector’s Observation: This item is on the rear of the home. In between the two inspections, there were roof leaks. The Respondent stated he would remove and replace the rear portion on the home.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint #27 Holes in foam at the south west corner at tie-in. I assume that this was done when they did the repairs and they weren't careful enough, to not do anymore damage to a damaged new roof.

Inspector’s Observation: This item is on the rear of the home. In between the two inspections, there were roof leaks. The Respondent stated he would remove and replace the rear portion on the home.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint #28 Over lapped side laps of shingles. This is the repair they thought was the right way to fix the shortcut shingles

Inspector’s Observation: I verified a damaged shingle on the south side where the drip edge was replaced.

• Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

(All errors contained in the original).

On September 15, 2022, 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); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about September 29, 2022, Respondent timely e-mailed an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about August 8, 2022, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on September 15, 2022 at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Klein testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline.

Investigator Klein testified that when he attended the jobsite inspection for the addendum items, Respondent’s representatives agreed to go beyond the Directive and correct the entire back portion of the roof.

In addition, Investigator Klein testified that on September 13, 2022, he received an email from Complainant informing him that there was no corrective work performed by Respondent on the Amended Written Directive. Because of this, Investigator Klein did not conduct a compliance jobsite inspection.

Finally, Investigator Klein testified that he did not receive a request from Respondent requesting additional time to complete the project prior to the expiration of the Directive.

Complainant testified that the length of the project was his biggest issue with this project. Complainant testified that he had given enough time for Respondent to make the repairs, and should not be required to give additional time for repairs.

Further, Complainant testified that once the Amended Directive was issued, he did not hear from Mr. Cardona until September 12, 2022.

Complainant also testified that there was a delivery truck with various materials which came to his house around 9:00 a.m. on September 13, 2022, but that he would not accept the materials as he could not give any more time.

Finally, Complainant testified that he was seeking for replacement of the roof and that all of the damages to be properly fixed.

Respondent presented the testimony of Joe Cardona and Dominic Monaco.

Mr. Cardona testified that they did their best, and was offering to go above and beyond the Directive by replacing the entire back portion of the roof. Mr. Cardona also testified that he acknowledged that mistakes were made during the initial project but was willing to correct the same.

In addition, Mr. Cardona testified that because they had to pay for the replacement materials from their own funds, this caused the delay in the final repairs.

Mr. Cardona also testified that he did not call Investigator Klein to request more time because he did not believe that Mr. Tait would refuse delivery of the materials and not allow the items to be repaired.

Mr. Monaco testified that due to the monsoon rains in August and September, Respondent’s other projects were delayed which in turn cause delays in ordering the materials for this project. My Monaco also testified that he tried to contact Mr. Tait on August 19, 2022, via phone call to inform him of the progress.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 12, 2022. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 334355 was first issued on August 10, 2021, and reflects that there were four open complaints including the present complaint.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano 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 § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established, and Messrs. Cardona and Monaco agreed 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).

As to the issue regarding the corrective work, the evidence 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). Despite Messrs. Cardona and Monaco’s best efforts, the repairs were not completed timely. Perhaps if they had communicated with Investigator Klein prior to the expiration of the Directive, there could have been an agreement to extend the deadline. Unfortunately, this was not done.

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. 334355 for a period of five days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 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 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.

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 30 days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, December 12, 2022.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically or by mail to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Revolution Home Remodeling LLC

[email redacted]

Christian Tait

[email redacted]

By Miranda Alvarez

Legal Secretary

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000