ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2022A-03743-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-09-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Roger L Fadroski,

COMPLAINANT

v.

River Renovations LLC,

License No. ROC 323235,

RESPONDENT

No. 2022A-03743-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 12, 2022

APPEARANCES: Complainant Roger L. Fadroski appeared on his own behalf. Ronald Goodnight, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent River Renovations LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

River Renovations LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 323235 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about November 2, 2021, Roger L. Fadroski (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a remodeling project.

On or about April 11, 2022, the Registrar received a Building Confidence Program request from Complainant.

Following an inspection, Investigator Cliff Corlett issued a Building Confidence Recommendation Letter indicating that five of the issues raised by Complainant were not in compliance with the Registrar’s workmanship standards.

On or about May 6, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Corlett. On or about May 18, 2022, after a jobsite inspection, Investigator Corlett issued a 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 or before June 1st 2022.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1 - Island and other counter tops cracked and coming apart.

Investigator’s Observation: Countertops are cracking and coming apart. Countertops exceed the industry standards for flatness. (1/16-inch per foot). Countertops should be properly removed and replaced.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 2 - Backsplash missing tile and grout

Investigator’s Observation: Tile backsplashes are missing tile, and have missing grout. Tiles are misaligned, have poor cuts, and sharp edges & corners.

All tile work should be properly removed and replaced.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 3 - Tile cracked and tile cuts have sharp edges and uneven joints.

Investigator’s Observation: Tile backsplashes are missing tile, and have missing grout. Tiles are misaligned and have poor cuts and sharp edges & corners.

All tile work should be properly removed and replaced.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 4 - Tile trim missing and has sharp edges.

Investigator’s Observation: Tile backsplashes are missing tile, and have missing grout. Tiles are misaligned and have poor cuts and sharp edges & corners.

All tile work should be properly removed and replaced.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 5 - Counter top near sink is not level or flat.

Investigator’s Observation: Countertops are cracking and coming apart. Countertops exceed the industry standards for flatness. (1/16-inch per foot). Countertops should be properly removed and replaced.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 6 - Flooring has gaps and threshold are poorly installed.

Investigator’s Observation: Floor planking has numerous gaps between planks. Poor workmanship on threshold reducer installation. Respondent should properly correct all poor workmanship on flooring installation.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 8 - Contract and payment receipts not provided by contractor.

Investigator’s Observation: Contract documents in violation of ARS 32-1154(A), 12. ARS 32-1158. Minimum Elements of a Contract.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 9 - Message on Jan 1st requested $1,000.00 to start. Venmo Zelle, no checks, Credit cards also not accepted. All materials paid for by homeowner, all 47 receipts available for inspector.

Investigator’s Observation: Contract documents in violation of ARS 32-1154(A), 12. ARS 32-1158. Minimum Elements of a Contract.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent did not perform any corrective work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Corlett was notified no corrective work had been performed.

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).

Investigator Corlett testified as to his observations of the jobsite during the inspection.

Complainant testified that Mr. Goodnight sent him a text message on April 7, 2022, saying he would probably be on the jobsite the following week to work on the project. Complainant stated the next text message he received from Mr. Goodnight was on June 3, 2022, stating he would be on the project on June 13, 2022. Complainant did not respond to the message because it was after the deadline in the directive expired.

Mr. Goodnight acknowledged that there were workmanship issues on the project, but asserted he did not receive the written directive from the Registrar. Mr. Goodnight indicated he had received other communications from the Registrar, but maintained he did not know of the deadline in the written directive. Mr. Goodnight stated that if he knew he had until June 1, 2022, to perform the corrective work, he would have completed the corrective work by June 1, 2022.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 1, 2022. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 323235 was first issued on January 11, 2019, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints or resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

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 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 did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the 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. 323235 for a period of three 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 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 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 40 days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

001

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

-137160-45720000Done this day, September 1, 2022.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

By Miranda Alvarez

Legal Secretary -54864001

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

001

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

-137160-45720000