ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-11070-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-05-30
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Richard Olander,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Casey Daniel Rodman
DBA: Desert Dynamics Construction
License No. ROC 324291,
RESPONDENT
No. 2022A-11070-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 16, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Richard Olander appeared on his own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Brian Binkney appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Casey Daniel Rodman (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 324291 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about December 16, 2020, Richard Olander (Complainant) closed on a home built and owned by Respondent Bullhead City, Arizona. The contracted price was $207,800.00.
On or about December 6, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Brian Binkney, and the jobsite inspection was performed on January 4, 2023.
Investigator Binkney then issued a written directive on or about January 23, 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 02/06/2023.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 1 - Kitchen drawer front damaged prior to taking possession
Investigator’s Observation: Kitchen door has a ding about the size of a quarter. This was noted upon move in.
Respondent to 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: 3 - Grout keeps coming out of the floor tile
Investigator’s Observation: Upon inspection there are several areas were grout in missing and/or coming out from the tile floor.
Respondent to 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 - Paint coming off of exterior of home, primarily the West side
Investigator’s Observation: Stucco texture falling off exposing unpainted stucco. Respondent shall identify problem and repair/fix 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.
(All errors contained in the original).
On February 22, 2023, 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).
On or about March 16, 2023, Respondent timely e-mailed an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about April 11, 2023, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on May 16, 2023 at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Binkney testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline.
Investigator Binkney testified that while he arrived a little late to the jobsite inspection, Respondent left the jobsite before the inspection began.
In addition, Investigator Binkney testified that he believed the corrective work period was sufficient to perform the repairs and that Respondent failed to make the repairs and did not request an extension.
Complainant testified that on the day of closing, Respondent failed to appear at a final walk-through in which some of the issues, like the kitchen door “ding”, could have been addressed.
Further, Complainant testified that there were many other issues which were repaired by Respondent within the first year of ownership, however, Respondent had failed to repair the remaining four items.
As to the grout, there was missing or coming out from the floor in the living room, hallway and other areas. Further, Complainant testified that the outside of his house looked like it was painted with “polka dots” as he believed that stucco was not cured prior to Respondent painting the house.
Complainant also testified that on the day of the jobsite inspection, Respondent was at Complainant’s house about 20 minutes prior to the inspection, but when Investigator Binkney informed the parties that he was running late, Respondent left the property.
In addition, Complainant testified that the last time he received communication from Respondent was November 1, 2022.
Finally, Complainant testified that he just wanted to get the items fixed right.
Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Further, Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. Further, the tribunal issued an order on April 10, 2023 with the Google Meet information and the same was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent at the address of record.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 30, 2023. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 324291 was first issued on April 22, 2019, and reflected that there were four open complaints, including the present complaint. Further, Respondent’s license was suspended on May 1, 2023 due to non-renewal.
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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. There was a ding on the kitchen door, the grout was missing and/or coming out from the tile floor, and paint was coming off the exterior of the home. 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 Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. From the testimony provided by Complainant, the last time Respondent corresponded with Complainant was November 1, 2022, and made no attempts to perform the corrective work. 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. 324291 for a period of twenty 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 30, 2023.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Casey Daniel Rodman
DBA: Desert Dynamics Construction
1829 Marble Canyon Dr
Bullhead City, AZ 86442
[email redacted]
Richard Olander
1756 El Cazador
Bullhead City, AZ 86442
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff