ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-03168-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-01-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Erica D. Heredia,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Ramer Construction LLC
License No. ROC 229982,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-03168-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 3, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Erica D. Heredia appeared on her own behalf. Rodolfo Ruiz, Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Ramer Construction LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ramer Construction LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 229982 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about December 3, 2021, Erica D. Heredia (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of a new home. Complainant closed escrow on the home in December 2021.
On or about March 21, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Greg Johndrow.
On May 5, 2023, after a jobsite inspection, Investigator Johndrow issued a written directive 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 June 2, 2023.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: “Kitchen cabinet breaking”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There is a 1/4'” gap between two of the upper cabinets in the kitchen.
. . . .
Complaint Item 2: “Kitchen drawer doesn't stay closed.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The top drawer in the base cabinet next to the refrigerator does not stay closed.
. . . .
Complaint Item 5: “Floor tiles. Uneven, cracked, hollow and grout is coming off”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The crack tile observed in the hallway, bedroom 1 and the living room. Require the necessary corrections.
The degradation of the Grout found in bedroom 3, under the dining room table and in the Living room requires necessary corrections.
The alleged uneven tile meet standards and no corrections are necessary.
The alleged hollow tile meets standards and no corrections are necessary. The condition was noted to not be extensive, and the tile is solidly bonded to the floor.
. . . .
Complaint Item 6: “Wall paint peels off”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The respondent is responsible for the peeling paint in a locations of the dining room and living room windows, where corrective work was performed.
All other areas cannot be verified as the responsibility of the respondent. I’m unable to determine the cause or assign fault.
. . . .
Complaint Item 11: “Closet sliding door is stained from two colors”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The sliding closet doors in bedroom 1 have areas of paint touch up that does not match the remaining portion of the door. The necessary corrections are required.
. . . .
Complaint Item 13: “Shower tile floor is uneven and sharp edges are exposed.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Excessive tile lippage was observed around the drain in the master shower and on the top of the curb. The tile contains sharp edges around the raised areas of the drain. The necessary corrections are required.
. . . .
Complaint Item 14: “Bathroom wall. (Half way fixed)”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The drywall patch started in the master bathroom has not been completed. The necessary corrections are required.
. . . .
Complaint Item 15: “Closets wooden rods bend. (missing middle support)”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Closet rod supports have not been installed for the mid-span rod section in all closets. The necessary corrections are required.
. . . .
Complaint Item 16: “Windows outside have stucco cracking and gaps”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Cracks and gaps were observed around multiple exterior sides of the windows. The necessary corrections are required.
. . . .
Complaint Item 17: “Porch pillars bottom are not complete”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The Westside porch pillar on the back patio was not completed on the bottom. And all pillars, on the back patio, did not receive stucco around the base. Necessary corrections are required.
. . . .
Complaint Item 18: “Stucco all around the house. On top close to the roof, where tile roof meets the wall and on the bottom of walls. Texture is uneven, and/or is falling, cracked or missing.;Silicone and/or stucco falling or missing. Around windows, sliding door, hose area, electrical outlets, wires,”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Stucco was observed to have been started for repairs and not completed. The upper sections of the walls below the roof line has not been completed. The patch work around the replaced windows has not been completed. There are multiple cracks, chips and exposed lathe noted throughout. The necessary corrections are required.
. . . .
Complaint Item 23: “Drive way cement cracked/broken”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The northeast corner of the driveway apron is broken. The necessary corrections are required.
. . . .
Complaint Item 28: “Walls bulging/wobbly”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The drywall in the master bedroom has a peaking seam observed mid span of the north wall. Necessary corrections are required.
All errors in original.
On or about June 5, 2023, Investigator Johndrow issued an Amended Written Directive that extended the deadline for compliance to June 16, 2023.
After the deadline in the Amended Written Directive expired, Investigator Johndrow conducted a compliance jobsite inspection during which he noted that several items had not been corrected.
Before Investigator Johndrow could refer the matter to the legal department for further action, Complainant raised an additional item that Investigator Johndrow had inspected, but had not included in the Written Directive or Amended Written Directive.
On or about August 18, 2023, Investigator Johndrow issued a second Amended Written Directive that included the new item and set a new deadline for compliance of September 4, 2023. The new item was detailed as follows:
Addendum Complaint Item 1: “I would like to do an addendum on a item on case #3023-03168 The shower window. The operable part of the window was switched out previously by the contractor and does not match the fixed side.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The pane of glass replaced on the operable portion of the window does not match the fixed side and should be corrected. This issue was previously noted in complaint item 12 investigator observations, but was not part of the complaint allegation. The respondent shall make the necessary corrections.
On or about October 19, 2023, Investigator Johndrow performed a compliance jobsite inspection and determined that five of the items in the written directives remained uncorrected.
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).
Investigator Johndrow testified consistently with his written directives. Investigator Johndrow also noted that between the issuance of the first written directive and the deadline in the last amended written directive, Respondent had 122 days to complete the corrective work.
Complainant testified that Respondent’s work on the project was flawed and Respondent had workers on the project who were not appropriately qualified to perform the work.
Mr. Ruiz did not deny that there were workmanship issues relating to the project. Mr. Ruiz testified that he was willing to perform the required work. Mr. Ruiz stated that he had suffered medical issues following the issuance of the written directives and was unable to perform the work at that time.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 22, 204. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 229982 was first issued on May 2, 2007, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints and one resolved/settled complaint 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 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 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 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. 229982 for a period of three 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)(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, January 22, 2024.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Gregory Johndrow
[email redacted]
Erica D Heredia
[email redacted]
Ramer Construction LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff