ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2022A-06492-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-01-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Joseph Eiden,

COMPLAINANT

Revolution Home Remodeling LLC

License No. ROC 334355,

RESPONDENT

No. 2022A-06492-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 27, 2022

APPEARANCES: Complainant Joseph Eiden appeared 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 Mike Wiskow 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 November 13, 2021, Complainant agreed to have Respondent install roofing around his house as well as other remodeling. The total cost was to be $43,400.00.

On or about August 4, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint containing five items against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mike Wiskow. The jobsite inspection was performed on August 29, 2022.

Investigator Wiskow also issued a written directive on August 29, 2022, 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 20, 2022.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: - Garage Roof Leaks

Investigator’s Observation: There is evidence of roof leaking in the garage. There is staining on new interior framing members, there is also evidence of puddles in the middle of the roof indicating no draining off the roof. The roof should have a positive drain off the flat roof. Any damage resulting from roof leak should be repaired.

Contractor should make repairs by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: - Ridge row blown off.

Investigator’s Observation: There are several sections of ridge row laying on the roof after being blown off.

Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: - House roof leaks

Investigator’s Observation: There is interior evidence of a roof leak near the front entry way. The valley to flat roof transition over the front entry pools causing the leaking into the home. The valley to flat roof intersection should have a positive drain off the roof. There is also kick-out flashing missing at the flat roof to garage intersection causing water staining on the inside and outside of the garage wall. The water should be kicked out to prevent running down the garage wall.

Contractor should make repairs by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

(All errors contained in the original).

On October 7, 2022, Investigator Wiskow conducted a compliance jobsite inspection. Investigator Wiskow made the following findings in his notes:

Compliance Findings:

Compliance Item #1: - Compliance Item: - Garage Roof Leaks

Investigator “There is evidence of roof leaking in the garage. There is staining on new interior framing members, there is also evidence of puddles in the middle of the roof indicating no draining off the roof. The roof should have a positive drain off the flat roof. Any damage resulting from roof leak should be repaired. Contractor should make repairs by appropriate means.”

Investigator’s CJSI Observation: Per the home owner, the garage leak appears to be repaired. The resulting damage to the garage door opener has not been repaired.

Not Completed

Compliance Item #2: - Ridge row blown off.

Investigator’s Observation: Completed

Governing Rule:

Compliance Item #3: - - House roof leaks

Investigator: “ There is interior evidence of a roof leak near the front entry way. The valley to flat roof transition over the front entry pools causing the leaking into the home. The valley to flat roof intersection should have a positive drain off the roof. There is also kick-out flashing missing at the flat roof to garage intersection causing water staining on the inside and outside of the garage wall. The water should be kicked out to prevent running down the garage wall.

Contractor should make repairs by appropriate means.”

Investigator’s CJSI Observation: Per the homeowner, the leak causing the damage has been repaired. The inside damage to the home has not been repaired. The kick-out required on the small flat roof is not installed as directed.

Not Completed.

(All errors contained in the original).

On October 13, 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); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about October 28, 2022, Respondent timely e-mailed an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about November 22, 2022, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 27, 2022 at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

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

Investigator Wiskow testified that while he observed that the roof was repaired, the damage to the interior of the home had not been remedied.

In addition, Investigator Wiskow testified that Respondent’s contract failed to meet the Registrar’s requirement as it did not contact the Registrar’s contact information.

Finally, Investigator Wiskow testified that he believed sufficient time was given to make the necessary repairs.

Complainant testified that initially Respondent was very compliant and would answer any of his questions or concerns. However, when he contacted Respondent about the leak in March 2022, there was no response.

Complainant testified further that in August he noticed the leaks were damaging the interior of his home, he contacted the Registrar.

In addition, Complainant testified that on October 13, 2022, Dominic Monaco contacted him to schedule a time for the drywall repairs, but he refused as he no longer wished to do business with them.

Finally, Complainant testified that there was still a miniscule roof leak.

Respondent presented the testimony of Joe Cardona and Dominic Monaco.

Mr. Cardona testified that there was a lot of communication as he thought they had more time to complete the interior repairs, but time ran a little bit later, and the project slipped through the cracks.

Mr. Cardona also testified that the language in the contract had now been remedied.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 9, 2023. 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, that there were leaks in the roof above the garage and over the living area in the home. Further, the ridge row had blown off. 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). There was no dispute from Respondent that the interior of the home had not been repaired.

As to the contract issue, while Mr. Cardona testified that the language in their contract was changed to comply with the Registrar’s statutes, no tangible evidence was provided proving the same. Therefore, Respondent is in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158.

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.

Finally, it is recommended that Respondent provide an updated contract to the Registrar within 30 days of this order. If Respondent fails to do so, the Registrar may revoke Respondent’s license.

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, January 9, 2023.

/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]

Joseph Eiden

[email redacted]

By Miranda Alvarez

Legal Secretary

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000