ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2022A-07160-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-12-04
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Laura Levin,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Revolution Home Remodeling LLC,
License No. ROC 334355,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2022A-07160-RFA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 14, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Laura Levin represented herself. Jose Cardona represented Respondent Revolution Home Remodeling, LLC. Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On October 26, 2023, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-entitled matter for hearing on November 14, 2023. The Notice of Hearing provided that the issue set for determination was Complainant Laura Levin’s appeal of the Registrar’s determination regarding her Recovery Fund Claim.
2. A hearing was held on November 14, 2023.
3. At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of Doug Ulmer, a legal assistant for the Registrar. Complainant testified on behalf of herself.
4. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) administers the Residentiary Recovery Fund (the Fund).
5. Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging poor work in connection with a residential construction contract, on the part of Respondent Revolution Home Remodeling, LLC.
6. The Registrar conducted an investigation into the complaint and issued a Directive to Respondent directing Respondent to correct complaint items 3, 4, 6, and 8.
7. Registrar Investigator Mike Wislow conducted a job-site compliance inspection to determine whether Respondent complied with the Directive. Investigator Wiskow determined that while Respondent correctly repaired complaint items 6 and 8, Respondent failed to correctly repair complaint items 3 and 4.
8. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license for alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and (22); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108(A).
9. Respondent filed an answer to the Citation.
10. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
11. A hearing was held on December 14, 2022.
12. On December 29, 2022, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision concluding that Respondent had violated A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and (22); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108(A). The ALJ found that Respondent failed to correct Complaint items 3 and 4 by appropriate means.
13. On January 12, 2023, the Registrar issued an Order adopting the Judge’s decision.
14. On or about May 5, 2023, Complainant filed a claim for a payout from the Fund. Complainant reported that her original contract with Respondent was for $9,300. However, Complainant did not pay Respondent for the work.
15. Complainant submitted three bids with her claims. Investigator Ulmer used the bid from the Patch Boys of Phoenix in the amount of $395.00 because it included the work required to repair Complaint items 3 and 4. Investigator Ulmer discounted the other bids submitted by Complainant because those bids included repairs that went beyond the scope of the decision issued by the ALJ and the Order adopted by the Registrar.
16. The Registrar ultimately determined that Complainant had suffered no damages because the cost to repair the deficient work was less than the balance owed on the contract.
17. On September 15, 2023, the Registrar notified Complainant through a Notice and Order of Recovery Fund Claim that she was not eligible for payout from the Fund.
18. Complainant filed an appeal regarding the determination.
19. At hearing, Complainant contended that she should be compensated for Respondent’s deficient work.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A) provides that “[a]n award from the fund is limited to the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of the contractor's violation but shall not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines. . . .” Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
After review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that Complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Registrar’s determination was improper. The weight of the evidence shows that the Registrar correctly determined that Complainant did not incur actual compensable damages.
Consequently, the Registrar appropriately denied Complainant’s Recovery Fund claim.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Lara Levin’s appeal is dismissed.
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.
-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, December 4, 2023.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
By: OAH Staff