ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-02152-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-03-18
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Sharon Crews ,
COMPLAINANT
v.
The Creta Group LLC
License No. ROC 318688,
RESPONDENT
No. 2022A-02152-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
1. The Creta Group, LLC (Respondent), is the holder of License Number 318688 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
2. On or about March 17, 2022, Sharon Crews (Complainant) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging abandonment in connection with a room addition by Respondent to a residence in Peoria, Arizona (“project”).
3. The Registrar performed an inspection of the project on April 13, 2022. Thereafter, the Registrar issued a Directive, dated April 29, 2022, requiring Respondent to correct alleged deficiencies on the project by May 20, 2022. As Respondent indicated it have difficulty in obtaining a permit, the Complainant agreed to an extension.
4. Thereafter, another Directive, dated June 10, 2022, was issued requiring Respondent to correct alleged deficiencies on the project by July 8, 2022. At a Compliance Inspection on August 23, 2022, Respondent requested that Complainant close the case which Complainant did on September 14, 2022.
5. When Respondent performed no further work, Complainant reopened the case on October 17, 2022. Another Job site Inspection was performed and a new Directive was issued on November 15, 2022, requiring Respondent to correct the following alleged deficiencies on the project by December 2, 2022.
Compliance Item: 1 - Move the water spigot on north wall to just outside of
add on
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent's architect verified at
inspection that the water spigot is to be moved as described per plans.
Respondent shall ensure this work is finished per approved plans by
appropriate means.
Compliance Item: 2 - Finish enclosing the outside of the add-on and stucco
and paint the outside matching existing stucco and paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Work described in this allegation has not
been completed. Respondent shall ensure work is completed by appropriate means.
Compliance Item: 3 - Take down the old north outside wall that has a slider
and two small windows and match the ceiling with the new extension 10 ft high ceiling and smoothing he west/east wall and ceiling where the addition connects. The ceiling and wall should be a smooth transition like the ceiling and wall is in the kitchen and dinette area with no signs of the old wall existing top bottom or sides.
Investigator’s Observation: Pre-existing wall of the home still in its
original condition, work is incomplete. Respondent shall ensure addition is
completed per approved plans by appropriate means.
Compliance Item: 4 - Do the electrical inside which includes: electrical plug
on the west wall, moving air vent to center of the room, add a fan in the
addition making sure both existing fan and new fan are equal in spacing, add four can lights to the ceiling making sure that all eight lights in the room are evenly spaced, and add up lighting all around the perimeter of the ceiling.
Investigator’s Observation: Agreement between parties does include
"Install a ceiling fan and new lights." Respondent shall ensure all work is
performed in accordance to city approved plans by appropriate means.
Compliance Item: 5 - Add insulation to the ceiling and walls inside of the
addition
Investigator’s Observation: Walls/ceiling are incomplete. Respondent
shall ensure insulation is installed per local codes and city approved plans by appropriate means.
Compliance Item: 6 - Add drywall and texture to the addition blending
existing drywall.
Investigator’s Observation: Drywall has not been started, respondent
shall ensure drywall work is completed by appropriate means.
Compliance Item: 7 - Add tile to the floor of the addition matching and
blending the whole room.
Investigator’s Observation: Flooring has not been started, respondent
shall ensure flooring is completed by appropriate means.
Compliance Item: 8 - Paint entire room and ceiling including the bathroom,
closet and all doors and molding. Homeowners choice of paint and color.
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall ensure interior paint and
trim is completed per contract by appropriate means.
6. Upon being informed that no corrective action was performed prior to the Directive deadline, the Registrar then issued a Citation to Respondent, dated December 21, 2022, for the alleged violation of the following:
a. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) (departure from or disregard of plans or specifications or any building code standards);
b. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) (violation of Arizona Administrative Code Rule 4-9-108 for failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner);
c. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) (failure to perform corrective action without valid justification).
7. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, dated January 23, 2023, that set a hearing for February 27, 2023, at 9:00 A.M. At the hearing on February 27, 2023, Complainant Sharon Crews testified on his own behalf; Iona Galea testified on behalf of Respondent. Daniel Edwards, the Registrar Investigator (Investigator) testified on behalf of the Registrar. Neither party submitted exhibits.
8. The Investigator testified on behalf of the Registrar consistently with his findings contained in the Directives and his job inspection notes. Specifically, he testified that with regard to permitting, Respondent told him that the city of Peoria was causing delays so he called the city of Peoria on August 18, 2022, and was advised by the city of Peoria that Respondent had not responded to the city’s request for additional information. He stated that at the inspection on August 23, 2022, Respondent indicated that he would finish the project in one to two weeks if Complainant would close the case, and that Complainant agreed to work with him and close the case. Complainant reopened the case when Respondent was not moving forward. He testified that he confirmed with Respondent on December 9, 2022, that no work had been performed and that a permit had still yet to be obtained.
9. Complainant testified that Respondent told her no permit was required because the new structure was less than 200 square feet. She further testified that she was told none of the work is up to code and that it will all have to be torn down. She stated Respondent did not come back to do any corrective work.
10. Iona Galea testified on behalf of Respondent that he acknowledged his mistake in not getting a permit before he started the project. He stated Complainant did not want blueprints prepared and that although a drafter had been hired, Complainant would not approve it. He stated none of the Directive items have been completed because no work can be performed until a permit is obtained, which he claimed the city of Peoria is delaying. He stated additional plans will be submitted to the city of Peoria and that he can maybe get the permit this week.
11. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record. Such record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 318688 was first issued on March 23, 2018, and renewed through March 31, 2024. Such prior license record reflects two previous cases as resolved/settled and one disciplinary action in Case No. 2022A-03086 (Final Administrative Decision and Order, dated November 18, 2022), in which Respondent’s license was suspended for five days for, among other things, a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), for failure to obtain a required permit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1101, et seq., which authorizes the Registrar to impose disciplinary sanctions against licenses for violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154.
2. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing fall to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by preponderance of the evidence. See Arizona Administrative Code Rule 2-19-119.
3. To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990).
4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) includes in pertinent part among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, any of the following acts:
...
2. Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code. (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.
3. Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar.
...
22. Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with his chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar.....
5. With regard to the “violation of any rule adopted by the registrar” under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) referenced in the Citation, the rule allegedly violated in this case is Arizona Administrative Code Rule 4-9-108(A) which requires that “[a] contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.”
6. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b). Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish that Respondent departed from or disregarded a building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another, and consequently Respondent should be disciplined for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b). Respondent admitted to proceeding with the project without a required building permit.
7. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3). Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish that Respondent’s work failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner and did not comply with Arizona Administrative Code Rule 4-9-108(a), and consequently Respondent should be disciplined for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3). Respondent did not dispute the existence of the Directive items.
8. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish that Respondent failed to perform any corrective action without a valid justification, and consequently Respondent should be disciplined for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). The evidence was uncontradicted that Respondent failed to perform any corrective work and there was no evidence presented for a valid justification for failing to do so. Respondent claimed it could not perform any further work until a permit was obtained, and that it was the city of Peoria that was causing delays. However, it has almost been a year since Respondent received the April 29, 2022, Directive requiring it to obtain a permit, and Respondent has provided no documentary evidence to substantiate this claim of the city’s delay. The Tribunal does not find the lack of a permit to be a valid justification for the failure to perform corrective work, particularly due to Respondent’s failure to demonstrate a diligent and good faith effort to obtain such a permit.
9. In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s license for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), § 32-1154(A)(3), and § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of this Order, The Creta Group, LLC’s, License Number 318688 is suspended for ten (10) days.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E), Respondent must pay to the Registrar a civil penalty of $500.00 in certified funds on or before 30 days from the effective date of this Order.
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)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of the outstanding prior civil penalty.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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.
Done this day, March 17, 2023.
/s/ Roger Geddes
Transmitted electronically to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
The Creta Group LLC
3844 N 24th St
Phoenix, AZ 85016
[email redacted]
Sharon Crews
9140 W. Davis Rd.
Peoria, AZ 85382
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff