ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-05136-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-11-09
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Dianne L. Cook,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Mayfield Screen & Patio Covers LLC
License No. ROC 327487,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-05136-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 8, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Dianne Cook appeared on her own behalf. Steven Mayfield, Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Mayfield Screen & Patio Covers LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Amy M. Haley
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Mayfield Screen & Patio Covers LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 327487 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about March 28, 2022, Dianne Cook (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the building of an awning.
On or about May 1, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging that Respondent failed to obtain the necessary permits required for the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Christopher Allison. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Allison 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 August 15, 2023.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 1 - Attached awning to mobile home. Gila county said it couldn't be attached. Steve came on 3/28/23 and fixed the problem and told me to give him $1,000.00 (500.00) for materials and (500.00) for permit. On 4/13/23 I received a second notice from Gila County telling me this was my final notice. I text Steve and told him I revived 2nd notice for him not complying and paying for my permit. He tome me he was busy. All Gila County wants is an engineering plan and form him to get a permit and he won't do it.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was not an issued permit for the property. Respondent shall comply with Gila County Building Department requirements. Respondent shall submit an approved final inspection the Investigator prior to the due date of this document.
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 in original.
After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Allison was notified by Gila County that no permit had yet been issued.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Investigator Allison testified that he initially received the Complaint against Respondent on May 1, 2023. At that time, noticing that the Complaint alleged a lack of building permit as required, Mr. Allison contacted Gila County and learned that Respondent did apply for a permit, but there were specific documents that had not yet been provided that were needed in order to issue the permit. Mr. Allison contacted Complainant and advised that they should give Respondent time to turn those documents in prior to scheduling an inspection. After a couple of weeks, Mr. Allison again verified with Gila County that the permit had not yet been issued. Mr. Allison then set the jobsite inspection for July 11, 2023.
Investigator Allison further testified that both parties were present during that inspection on July 11, 2023 and a written directive was subsequently issued on July 31, 2023 with a deadline to remediate of August 15, 2023. As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Allison verified that still no permit has been issued.
Complainant testified that she contracted Respondent to build her an awning. Originally the awning was attached to her mobile home, but was advised by Gila County that, not only was it not allowed to be attached, but also that it required a permit. Subsequently, Complainant advised Respondent who then came back to the property, detached it from the home, and added footings to support the structure. Respondent charged Complainant an additional $1000.00, $500.00 of which went toward the additional materials used for the footings, and $500.00 for the permit. Complainant testified that she contacted Gila County last week who advised that they were waiting for a “stamped structural letter” in order to issue the permit. Lastly, she testified that she is now attempting to sell her home, but is currently in limbo given this issue.
Mr. Mayfield arrived to the hearing 24 minutes late. He testified that Complainant signed a contract wherein it stated it was the homeowner’s responsibility to obtain any necessary permits. Notwithstanding, after receiving the letter from Gila County, he thought he could help Complainant by trying to obtain the permit, hence charging her the $500.00. He paid for the permit and submitted the documents that “all other vendors use”, but the County would not release the permit without an engineer stamped plan. He further testified that he did not know how to obtain the documents the County was requesting and was unaware that this project required a permit when he took on the project.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 8, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 327487 was first issued on January 23, 2020, 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.
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 all appropriate building codes of Gila County and that this omission is a material disregard that is prejudicial to the Complainant. Regardless of who was required to obtain the permit, Respondent should not have begun work on the project until a permit had been issued. Therefore, Complainant has established that Respondent is in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
The evidence established that Respondent had made attempts to obtain a permit. Notwithstanding, a permit still has not been obtained. No extension of time on the written directive was requested by Respondent. Therefore, Complainant did establish 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. 327487 for a period of 1 (one) day.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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, November 9, 2023.
/s/ Amy M. Haley
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Dianne L. Cook
PO Box 1154
Tonto Basin, AZ 85553
[email redacted]
Mayfield Screen & Patio Covers LLC
375 S Stardust Ln
Apache Junction, AZ 85120
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff