ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2022A-07160-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-12-29
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Laura Levin
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Revolution Home Remodeling, LLC
License No. ROC 334355,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2022A-07160-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 14, 2022
APPEARANCES: Complainant Laura Levin (Complainant) appeared on behalf of herself. Joseph Cardona appeared on behalf of Respondent Revolution Home Remodeling, LLC (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent holds license number 334355 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC or Registrar). Joseph Cardona is Respondent’s qualifying party. Dominic Monaco is an owner of Respondent.
2. On or about July 14, 2022, Complainant hired Respondent to replace the roof on her home.
3. On or about August 3, 2022, Respondent started work on Complainant’s roof. On or about August 20, 2022, Respondent stopped work on Complainant’s roof.
4. On or about August 22, 2022, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC or Registrar) received a complaint from Complainant alleging poor workmanship on the part of Respondent.
5. On August 29, 2022, ROC Investigator Mike Wiskow conducted a job-site inspection.
6. On or about August 30, 2022, the ROC issued a Directive to Respondent that provided, in relevant part, as follows:
Dear Respondent:
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 16, 2022.
RESTRICTIONS
You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.
If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 3 - While scraping off old roof, debris was coming from ceiling throughout house due to the heavy banging on roof; While scraping off old roof, contractor pierced and broke bathroom skylight with tool handle
Investigator’s Observation: There is evidence that the skylight opening was damaged during tear 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: 4 - Interior damage keeps increasing with each rain event. To date, ceiling open and hanging, A/C vents and return vent hanging down in Arizona room and office. Ceiling/walls water damaged in Living Room and 2nd Bedroom.
Investigator’s Observation: There were several areas of the home that had been damaged by substantial roof leaks to include damage around interior ceiling vents, ceiling damage at the edges, damage around skylights, staining in the ceiling and water damage on the garage beam. 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: 6 - Once roof installation was completed on 8/6/22, noticed roofing nails not flushed and protruding every where there was not drywall - porch roof, eaves and soffits surrounding house, entire interior of garage roof. Contractor stated the nail length was code and they were not responsible to dress exposed nails, that was my issue and my cost.
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 and inside the garage. 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: 8 - When contractor installed the two replacement skylights (living room and main bath), interior ceiling surrounding skylights were damaged. Have requested contractor repair and have inquired multiple days when would they come to do that so I could be available to grant access. No response, no repair yet.;
Investigator’s Observation: There is damage around the skylights. 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.
7. Through the August 30, 2022 Directive, the ROC notified Respondent that it was not required to repair complaint items 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10. See the Registrar’s Administrative Record, pgs. 20-24.
8. On or about September 27, 2022, Investigator Wiskow conducted a compliance job-site inspection. Investigator Wiskow found that Respondent had correctly repaired complaint items 6 and 8. However, Investigator Wiskow concluded that complaint items 3 and 4 were incomplete. Investigator Wiskow’s compliance job-site inspection notes provided, in relevant part, as follows:
Complaint Item 3: - There is evidence that the skylight opening in the bathroom was damaged during tear off.
Investigator’s Observation: The foil product around the skylight opening is still bent. -Incomplete
Compliance Item 4: - There were several areas of the home that had been damaged by substantial roof leaks to include damage around interior ceiling vents, ceiling damage at the edges, damage around skylights, staining in the ceiling and water damage on the garage beam.
Investigator’s Observation: The areas have been repaired, however the paint does not match. The repairs are readily noticeable. The repair at the beam in the garage that has been repainted is considered incomplete. –Incomplete
9. On or about September 30, 2022, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3) and (22); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108(A).
10. Respondent filed an answer to the Citation.
11. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
12. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of herself. Respondent presented the testimony of Mr. Cardona and Dominic Monaco. Investigator Wiskow testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.
13. Investigator Wiskow testified consistently with the findings that were provided in his job-site inspection notes, the Directive, and the compliance job-site inspection notes.
14. Complainant explained that Respondent performed poor work when it replaced her roof. Complainant alleged that Respondent caused her roof to leak. On one occasion, Respondent’s workers came to Complainant’s home to make repairs, however, Complainant did not know that the workers were sent by Respondent. Complainant asked them to leave. However, Complainant later clarified with Dominic Monaco that the workers were from Respondent’s company and Complainant made arrangements for Respondent’s workers to return the next day.
15. Mr. Cardona and Mr. Moncaco testified that Complainant denied Respondent access to her home on several occasions. However, Mr. Cardona nor
Mr. Monaco did not provide the dates that Complainant allegedly denied Respondent access to her home. Moreover, there was no evidence provided that Complainant denied Respondent access during the time period for compliance under the Directive.
16. Mr. Cardona and Mr. Monaco denied that Respondent’s work caused Complainant’s roof to leak.
17. Mr. Cardona alleged that the worker who installed Complainant’s HVAC performed deficient work. Mr. Cardona stated that Complainant’s roof was in a bad condition before Respondent began work.
18. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Respondent’s work failed to meet minimum workmanship standards with regard to compliant items 3, 4, 6, and 8. Respondent failed to establish that Complainant denied access during the time period for compliance with the Directive. Respondent failed to establish that it had valid justification for failing to comply with the Directive with regard to compliant items 3 and 4.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section
41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 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)
3. The Administrative Law Judge may consider Registrar’s administrative
record. See A.A.C. § R4-9-118.
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent’s work failed
to meet minimum workmanship standards, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent correctly repaired complaint items 6 and 8. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to correct complainant items 3 and 4 without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 Revolution Home Remodeling, LLC License No. 334355, for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
Done this day, December 29, 2022.
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 is forty days after the date of that certification.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham
Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Revolution Home Remodeling, LLC
5235 S. Kyrene Rd
Tempe, AZ 85283
[email redacted]
Laura Levin
10835 W. Windsor Dr.
Sun City, AZ 85351
[email redacted]
By Miranda Alvarez
Legal Secretary