ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-08241-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-02-21
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Heidi Luekenga,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Frontline Consultants & Contracting LLC
License No. ROC 322829,
RESPONDENT
No. 2022A-08241-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 2, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Heidi Luekenga appeared on her own behalf. Cody Brewster, Owner, appeared on behalf of Respondent Frontline Consultants & Contracting LLC, which was represented by Nick Fausette.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Frontline Consultants & Contracting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 322829 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about March 14, 2022, Heidi Luekenga (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent with respect to a remodeling project. Brenner Willis signed the contract on behalf of Respondent. The contract provided as follows:
The primary agreement is paper copy, all material will be purchased by the homeowners. All labor will be paid out to all trades that come in to the home by homeowners (Heidi and Ross). No material and labor will be paid out from Frontline Consultants & Contracting. We require a deposit to start the job. Penn will be the project manager on the job, and myself, Brenner Willis, is the renovation coordinator. Frontline Consultants & Contracting; general contractors fee is $28,000. After material and labor have been paid out by homeowners Frontline will charge an additional 7.5% fee. Estimated job time is 12-14 weeks.
On or about March 14, 2022, Complainant paid Respondent a deposit of $14,000.00.
The project, as envisioned by Complainant, involved the remodeling of four bathrooms and her kitchen. As part of the kitchen remodel, Complainant wanted a load-bearing wall to be removed, plumbing moved, and beams installed. On a spreadsheet detailing the work to be done identifying individuals who could perform the work, Respondent included the name “Hector Garcia” to complete “Beams” with the following note: “Install 3 Beams – requires kitchen demo to be complete for final verification.” The plumbing work was noted as “Kitchen requires demo first – then bid.” The electrical was noted as “Requires demo and relocated walls.”
During the project, Complainant contracted directly with the trades that performed work on the project. Complainant paid the trades directly and paid for materials as needed.
Respondent hired Penny Estes to be the project manager and assigned Mr. Willis to be the renovation coordinator. Mr. Willis was Respondent’s employee and Ms. Estes was an independent contractor.
On or about July 9, 2022, Mr. Willis quit his job with Respondent.
On or about August 8, 2022, Respondent terminated Ms. Estes as an independent contractor.
On or about August 24, 2022, Complainant fired Respondent from the project.
On or about September 19, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jack Grimm. During the jobsite inspection, Investigator Grimm was informed that Respondent did not perform any work on the jobsite, but the work was done by other contractors. According to Complainant, Mr. Brewster, Respondent’s owner, had only been to the jobsite once.
After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Grimm determined Respondent had abandoned the project.
The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
On or about December 2, 2022, Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation and Complaint. In the Answer, Respondent stated the following:
At a certain point, prior to the completion of the scope of work outlined in the estimates, both Penny Estes, the project manager; and Brenner Willis, the renovation coordinator, had quit or stopped working on Complainant’s job site. Once Respondent was made aware, Respondent visited the job site to establish rapport with Complainant and adhere to the scope of work originally agreed to. A dispute arose regarding the demolition of a particular supporting wall within the dwelling, and Respondent notified the Complainant that all further work was to be performed by a different contractor due to the safety issues and concerns that Respondent addressed with Complainant regarding the demolition of the load bearing wall. Respondent attempted to finalize the agreement with Complainant via a check, as a partial refund because most of the work at the point had been completed. The parties’ only issue is how much of a refund should be given to Complainant by Respondent.
Further, Respondent acknowledged that it “refused to eliminate a load bearing wall that was in place to structurally support the dwelling.” Respondent asserted that Respondent did not fail to work with Complainant until Complainant “deviated from the scope of work.”
Investigator Grimm testified that the Registrar did not have specific standards for what constituted abandonment. Investigator Grimm stated it was a judgment call based on a lack of work on the jobsite and the unresponsiveness of the contractor. Investigator Grimm testified that based on the information he was provided, he believed Respondent abandoned the project.
Complainant testified that the major work she wanted performed under this contract was the removal of the load-bearing wall and elected to remodel the bathrooms at the same time. Complainant maintained that she hired Respondent because she was assured that the load-bearing wall could be removed. Complainant stated she worked with Ms. Estes, who coordinated the project. Complainant testified she paid all of the trades directly and Respondent did not perform any work on her project. Complainant indicated that when she met with Mr. Brewster after Mr. Willis and Ms. Estes quit the project, he was hesitant to remove the load-bearing wall and admitted Respondent had never performed such work before. Complainant stated she received a bid from a new general contractor on September 8, 2022, and entered into a contract with them on September 12, 2022.
Ms. Estes testified that she never received any money from Mr. Willis with respect to the project. Ms. Estes stated that after Mr. Willis left his employment with Respondent, she had no way to get in contact with Mr. Brewster.
Mr. Brewster testified that Mr. Willis was running Respondent’s remodel division, but he quit on July 9, 2022. Mr. Brewster maintained that Respondent performed work on the bathrooms and had done “quite a bit of work.” Mr. Brewster eventually admitted that “subcontractors” performed the work and that Respondent did not contract with these “subcontractors” given that Complainant entered into contract directly with the trades. Mr. Brewster was unable to identify what work Respondent did on the project between July 9, 2022, when Mr. Willis left employment, and August 24, 2022, when Complainant fired Respondent from the project.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 21, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 322829 was first issued on December 3, 2018, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open or prior 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 Administrative Law Judge finds Complainant’s testimony regarding the intended scope of work to be credible. Mr. Willis signed the contract on behalf of Respondent and, in that role, agreed to remove a load-bearing wall in Complainant’s home. Notably, Mr. Brewster appeared to have little to no knowledge of the project from the time of its inception through eventually learning that Mr. Willis and Ms. Estes were no longer working on the project.
The evidence established that Respondent submitted a bid and entered into a contract for Complainant’s project. Respondent then failed to complete the project as contemplated and was unwilling to perform the removal of the load-bearing wall. Further, Respondent’s Answer in this matter admitted that Respondent “refused” to remove the load-bearing wall.
Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
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. 322829 for a period of five days.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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.
Done this day, February 22, 2023.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Heidi Luekenga
[email redacted]
Nicholis Faussette
Faussette and Faussette PLLC
[email redacted]
Jack Grimm
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff