ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-02010-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-06-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Crystal Para ,

COMPLAINANT

v.

R & D Appel LLC

DBA: The Edge Remodeling

License No. ROC 237727,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-02010-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 31, 2023

APPEARANCES: Crystal Para appeared on her own behalf. Randy Appel appeared on behalf of Respondent R & D Appel LLC. Investigator James Carter appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors. All parties appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Del Vecchio

FINDINGS OF FACT

R & D Appel LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 237727 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about September 23, 2021, Crystal Para (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, “[d]emo of 2 columns and haul off the debris. Build walls on 3 to enclose the carport with siding on the exterior. Provide and install new garage door and opener. Fix facia (sic) in several areas around the home, including the roof. . . . ”

On or about April 12, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator James Carter. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Carter issued a written directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1 - The carport was converted into a garage, and when it rains, water is coming in under the treated wood on both sides of the garage

Investigator’s Observation: Verified - Inspector observed water staining on the base of the framing done in the garage. Respondent advised no permit was pulled with the City. Obtain necessary local permits and comply with local inspections

Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.

(All errors contained in original.)

Following the issuance of the written directive, no additional work was performed by Respondent. After the deadline of March 20, 2023, the directive expired, and Investigator Carter was notified no permit was obtained.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Carter testified once he completed the Jobsite Inspection he contacted the City of Mesa and informed them of the carport conversion. Investigator Carter was told by the City of Mesa the removal of the pillars was considered a structural change and therefore required a permit.

Complainant testified that, on or about February 23, 2023, after Investigator Carter’s Jobsite Inspection, Complainant was visited by the City of Mesa building inspector, and notified of her she needed to obtain a permit for the work completed on her carport. Complainant applied for a permit from the City of Mesa, however, as of the date of the hearing, May 31, 2023, an inspection by the City of Mesa had not been completed.

Respondent testified he did not believe a permit was necessary. Respondent admitted he was informed by Inspector Carter that the City of Mesa required a permit for the scope of work which he had already completed. Respondent was further notified through the Written Directive a permit must be obtained in order to comply with local building codes. Respondent admitted at no point did he obtain a permit as he believed it to be solely the homeowner’s responsibility.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s License No. 237727 which was first issued September 16, 2007, and is active. Respondent’s License record No. 237727 reflects that there was 1 open complaint and 1 resolved/settled complaint against Respondent’s license.

Administrative notice was also taken of Respondent’s other Licenses No. 213782 and 282348. Such other License records reflect that Respondent’s License No. 213782 was first issued on December 16, 2005, and was suspended on May 31, 2023, for lack of a qualifying party. Respondent’s record for License No. 213782 also reflected 1 open complaint, 2 complaints resulting in discipline, and 3 resolved/settled complaints. Such other License records reflect that Respondent’s License No. 282348 was first issued on December 26, 2012, and is active. Such other License No. 282348 records also reflected no prior or current complaints against that 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 did not complete the project in accordance with the applicable building code in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded applicable building code in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

The evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with local building codes by not obtaining a permit. Contractors are expected to perform their work in accordance with all applicable laws, including building codes. Even assuming it was Complainant’s responsibility to obtain all building permits required, Respondent was obligated not to perform work requiring a permit until one had been obtained. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to perform its work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. 237727 for a period of 24 hours.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. § 32-1101(A)(5), 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, June 20, 2023.

/s/ Brian Del Vecchio

Administrative Law Judge

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

Martín Quezada, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

R & D Appel LLC

DBA: The Edge Pools

[email redacted]

Crystal Para

[email redacted]

James Carter

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff