ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2022A-06824-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-01-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Marla Theodoro,

COMPLAINANT

Revolution Home Remodeling LLC

License No. ROC 334355,

RESPONDENT

No. 2022A-06824-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 13, 2022

APPEARANCES: Complainant Marla Theodoro appeared on her own behalf. Joseph Cardon, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Revolution Home Remodeling LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

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 June 20, 2022, Marla Theodoro (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the removal of the existing and installation of a new roof.

On or about August 12, 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 Michael Wiskow. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Wiskow 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 September 14, 2022.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 2 - Interior repair due to open roof at night during rainstorm- no tarps laid out on the roof

Investigator’s Observation: There were several areas on the interior of the home that got wet due to a rain storm while only the new felt was installed on the roof. There should be no water damage to any interior part of the home due to a rain storm mid project.

Contractor should repair water damaged areas 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: 3 - Interior damage to all skylight in home.

Investigator’s Observation: The skylight was damaged during roof replacement.

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: 5 - Hundreds of Roofing nails not flushed (sticking out all over) on all eaves, soffits and the garage. Wood cracked and damaged from nails all around the house.

Investigator’s Observation: There are nails from the roof sticking through the bottom of the roof sheathing at the eaves where there is no soffit. There is also wood chipped out at these locations. There should be no nails showing or wood splintered out at the visible, underneath, painted side of the roof sheathing.

Contractor should repair affected areas 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: 6 - Sheets of roof wood nailed to rotting wood soffits;

Investigator’s Observation: There is an area in the back corner of the home that has new roof sheathing (OSB). The OSB is covering rotted subfacia boards. In order for the sheathing to be properly attached to the subfacia, the rotted pieces of facia need to be replaced. The newly replaced roof sheathing should also be replaced with plywood, not OSB, to match the existing sheathing so it looks the same once painted.

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.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent performed some corrective work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Wiskow was notified that not all of the 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 Wiskow testified that at the time of the compliance inspection, Complaint Items 2 and 6 were not completed to within the Registrar’s standards. Investigator Wiskow stated that the water damage at the ceilings were painted with a bright white paint that was very visible. Investigator Wiskow also noted that at the back of the house, the rotted subfacia boards had not been replaced properly

Complainant testified that she had purchased the home in February 2022 and that she shared a roof with her neighbor. They had planned to replace the roof at the same time. Complainant indicated the leaks had not occurred prior to Respondent’s work on the project.

Mr. Cardona admitted it was a mistake not to tarp the roof and damage resulted from an unexpected storm. Mr. Cardona stated that, according to Arizona building codes, the nails had to be a certain length and cutting them off at Investigator Wiskow’s direction would void the warranty. Mr. Cardona stated that Complainant owed Respondent $15,000.00 on the contract and Respondent would not perform any additional wood work until it was paid. Mr. Cardona acknowledged Respondent performed no work regarding Complainant Item 6.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 3, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 334355 was first issued on August 10, 2021, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were four open complaints and no prior 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 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. 334355 for a period of five 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

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, January 3, 2023.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically or by mail to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Revolution Home Remodeling LLC

[email redacted]

Mike Wiskow

[email redacted]

Marla Theodoro

[email redacted]

By-54864001

001

-137160-45720000 Miranda Alvarez

Legal Secretary