ALJDEC - Licensing

2022A-10965-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-05-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Zoran Pelevic,

COMPLAINANT,

Red Star Handyman & Remodeling, LLC

License No. ROC 310513,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2022A-10965-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 2, 2023

APPEARANCES: Complainant Zoran Pelevic appeared on his own behalf with his wife, Daniela Pelevic. Blas Almanza and Chris Dugan appeared as witnesses. Nikolina Stjepanovic appeared on behalf of Respondent Red Star Handyman & Remodeling, LLC. Biljana Stjepanovic and Vlado Stjepanovic were also present. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Mark Nipp appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

FINDINGS OF FACT

Red Star Handyman & Remodeling, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 310513, Specialty Residential R-62 Minor Home Improvements, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). According to the Registrar’s public website, Nikolina Stjepanovic was Respondent’s Qualifying Party until her disassociation on March 31, 2023. Biljana Stjepanovic is a Manager of Respondent, as is Vlado Stjepanovic.

On or about October 3, 2022, Zoran Pelevic (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for the remodel of his home. The contract price was $28,200.00. Complainant paid Respondent $22,400.00 of the contract price.

On or about December 4, 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 Mark Nipp. After a January 12, 2023 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Nipp issued a Written Directive dated January 24, 2023, 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 February 13, 2023.

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

Compliance Item #2: Unevenly painted throughout house, some places with only 1 coat of paint vs. 2, some areas not touched by any paint

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

I saw there were areas where there was inadequate paint coverage in the primary bathroom (above shower at ceiling). I saw a section of the ceiling that was not painted in the primary bedroom closet. Interior paint should be applied in an amount conforming to the manufacturer’s specifications of coverage and in sufficient quantity to visually cover all specified areas.

The contractor should identify all locations where this condition exists and the respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s) 8-9

Compliance Item #5: Uneven wall texture

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

I saw uneven and rough wall texture along with exposed mesh drywall tape in the following locations:

a) Primary bathroom (shower – window corner bead)

b) Primary bathroom (above sinks – trowel marks, pits, rough)

c) Primary bathroom (outlet drywall not complete)

d) Previous Fireplace – rough, trowel marks

Reference Picture(s) 11-21

Compliance Item #10: Lots of grout used to patch up holes where mistakes were made

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

I saw multiple areas in the primary bathroom where the grout “ramped” up the wall. In these locations the grout extended well above the top edge of the tile. The grout was irregular and readily noticeable. The grout should be flush with the top edge of the adjacent tile. Missing or irregular grout is not acceptable.

Reference Picture(s) 26-33

Compliance Item #15: No sealant under glass divider - water from shower going through; damages

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

I saw that the glass partition in the primary bathroom shower (pony wall) did not have any sealant and that water could penetrate to the other side and potentially cause damage and a slipping hazard. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s) 41

Compliance Item #19: Main register not installed after wall was knocked down

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

The Complainant pointed out three locations where the registers had not been reinstalled (kitchen and living room).

I saw the AC registers were missing. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Reference Picture(s) 44-46

Compliance Item #22: The shower faucets are not installed correctly, we cannot reach a hotter temperature

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

The Complainant explained that the primary bathroom shower faucet does not turn enough toward “hot” and showers are warm.

I operated the shower faucet and noted that the handle turns completely through and passed the cold water markings while it stops at the midpoint on the hot water markings. I let the water run for about 3 minutes and the shower water was warm but not hot. I confirmed the water heater worked by testing the primary bathroom sink and noted that the water temperature was significantly hotter than the shower.

The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s) 48-49

Compliance Item #23: There are cracks in the ceiling when the wall was removed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

I saw there was an excessively long crack at the seam (ceiling) where the wall had been removed. The Contractor should repair nail pops, seam lines and other hairline cracks one time within first year of occupancy

The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s) 50

Compliance Item #26: The shower Schluter trim is not properly installed along the shower glass

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

I saw in the primary bathroom area, the schluter trim was partially covered by grout and does not appear to be evenly installed. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Reference Picture(s) 51-54

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Compliance Item #1: Quality of paint and paint job - was discussed to use

eggshell finish for walls and semi-gloss for all woodwork, both of which were not used

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified - Insufficient Evidence

The Complainant explained that the baseboards were not painted with semi-gloss as agreed and the walls were paint with satin instead of eggshell. The Complainant had another contractor paint a section of the wall in the paint/finish he desired to use as an example (P2).

The Respondent stated he used a satin finish on the walls.

I reviewed the contract and noted that the finish of the paint was not specified for either the walls or the trim.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 2-7

Compliance Item #3: Ceiling was sprayed, instead of rolled like originally asked

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified - Insufficient Evidence

I reviewed the contract and noted the method of painting was not specified. There was Insufficient Evidence to determine if the ceiling was sprayed or rolled.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 4

Compliance Item #4: Painted over speakers, later damaged speakers when removing paint from them

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified - Insufficient Evidence

I saw the speaker had a small amount of damage on the lower right corner.

However, there was Insufficient Evidence to determine how/when the damage occurred or who was responsible.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 10

Compliance Item #6: Floor tiles and shower wall tiles in both bathrooms... Tiles not professionally installed - uneven, poorly done

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified

The Complainant explained that there were two tile in the shower floor that had lippage and that the grout lines were not consistently sized.

I measured the shower floor tiles and the lippage was less than 1/32 inch. I

measured the wall tile grout lines and noted they were within acceptable standards.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 22-25

Compliance Item #7: Tiles not professionally installed - uneven, poorly done

Investigator’s Observation: Combined with Compliance Item #6

See Compliance Item #6

Compliance Item #8: Grout not sealed between tiles on both flooring and shower wall tiles, some grout has already fallen from use of shower

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified - Insufficient Evidence

I did not see any “fallen” grout. I was not able to determine if the shower floor tile was or was not sealed.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 25

Compliance Item #9: Tiles stained with black grout

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified - Insufficient Evidence

The Complainant explained that the grout was stained and black.

I noted the floor was dirty and I could not determine if the staining was the responsibility of the Respondent or a result of owner maintenance.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 25

Compliance Item #11: Paint and other markings left on tiles;

Investigator’s Observation: Corrected Prior to Jobsite Inspection by the Complainant

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) N/A

Compliance Item #12: Laminate flooring poorly installed not even and you can feel movement when walking over it;

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified

The Complainant showed me areas of the floor where he though it moved [deflected] too much.

I inspected the areas and determined that all the areas with deflection were within minimum workmanship standards.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 35-38

Compliance Item #13: Tub drain stopper not properly placed

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified

I saw that the tub drain stopper was the twist lick type and that it was properly placed within the bath tub and it functioned as designed.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 39

Compliance Item #14: Water pressure issues in shower

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified

The Complainant turned on the shower in the hall bathroom and stated that it wasn’t enough water pressure.

I observed the shower and noted that it appeared to have sufficient water pressure. Modern shower fixtures are fitted with a water saving device that may reduce water pressure.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 39-40

Compliance Item #16: Refrigerator dented

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified - Insufficient Evidence

I saw that the refrigerator was dented; however, there was Insufficient Evidence to determine how/when the damage occurred or who was responsible.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 42-43

Compliance Item #17: Paint/scratches/chipping on furniture

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified - Insufficient Evidence

The Complainant explained that the Respondent got paint on the top of his dresser in the primary bedroom.

I saw there was paint on the dresser; however, there was Insufficient Evidence to determine how/when the damage occurred or who was responsible.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 34

Compliance Item #18: Paint was dumped in the toilets

Investigator’s Observation: Corrected Prior to Jobsite Inspection by the Respondent

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) N/A

Compliance Item #20: Baseboards not placed behind bathroom vanities

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified – This compliance item does not indicate poor workmanship or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).

I saw that there was no baseboard installed behind the vanities. However, baseboards are not typically installed in these types of vanities.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) 47

Compliance Item #21: When we shower the water is not draining and it is accumulating about 2 inches

Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified - Insufficient Evidence

The Complainant did not want to demonstrate this.

I was unable to inspect this compliance item.

No further action is required.

Reference Picture(s) N/A

Compliance Item #24: The air vent registers are not installed back on

Investigator’s Observation: DUPLICATE of Complaint Item #19

See Compliance Item #19

Compliance Item #25: Floorboards need to be painted with semi-gloss (including the closet)

Investigator’s Observation: DUPLICATE of Complaint Item #1

See Compliance Item #1

All errors in original.

On February 15, 2023, after the timeframe for compliance with the Written Directive expired, Investigator Nipp was informed by Respondent that no corrective work had been performed. Thereafter, Investigator Nipp forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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)(16), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Nipp testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection notes and the Written Directive. Investigator Nipp testified that he issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for contracting beyond the scope of its license. Investigator Nipp explained that Respondent’s license classification allows for it to contract for work totaling $5,000.00 per project, and this contract totaled $28,200.00, and Complainant paid Respondent $22,400.00 of the contract price.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Nipp’s findings and testimony. Complainant testified that the project was to be completed within four weeks of when Respondent began its work, that it is still not complete, and the workmanship is poor.

Nikolina Stjepanovic testified that the work was incomplete and that Complainant “called for an inspection in the middle of it.” Ms. Stjepanovic testified that she “wanted to find out how to proceed” and alleged that Complainant would not allow Respondent back to the jobsite. However, Ms. Stjepanovic acknowledged that she has no documentation to support her claim of a denial of access.

Regarding contracting beyond the scope of the license, Ms. Stjepanovic contended that the estimate/invoice provided to Complainant is comprised of “separate jobs.” The Administrative Law Judge finds Ms. Stjepanovic’s testimony asserting that the project consisted of separate projects disingenuous as there was only one contract containing various line items encompassing remodel work for a total contract price of $28,400.00.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 16, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 310513 was first issued on December 19, 2016, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open complaint, no complaints resulting in discipline, and no resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations 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.”

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’s contract with Complainant was in the amount of $28,400.00 and that Respondent’s license classification precludes Respondent from contracting for a project in excess of $5,000.00. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directive and that no valid justification existed for such failure. 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 Number 310513 for a period of five (5) 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, May 17, 2023.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Martín Quezada, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Mark Nipp

[email redacted]

Zoran Pelevic

[email redacted]

Red Star Handyman & Remodeling, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff