ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-05347-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-11-15
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Brianna Hardin
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Fripps and Associates, Inc.
License No. ROC 327913,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-05347-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 26, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Brianna Hardin represented herself. Richard Hundley, Esq. represented Respondent Fripps and Associates, Inc.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent Fripps and Associates, Inc. holds License No. 327913 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
2. George Ripps is Respondent’s qualifying party.
3. Respondent agreed to remodel Complainant’s home.
4. On April 4, 2022, Respondent started work.
5. On October 24, 2022, Respondent stopped work.
6. On or about May 8, 2023, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant alleging poor work on the part of Respondent.
7. On or about May 22, 2023, Registrar Investigator, Cliff Corlett, conducted a job-site inspection. Investigator Corlett substantiated compliant items 1 through 4, 6 through 13, and 15.
8. On June 5, 2023, Investigator Corlett issued a Directive against Respondent’s license. The Registrar directed Respondent to correct complaint items 1 through 4, 6 through 13, and 15, by appropriate means, no later than July 5, 2023.
9. On July 31, 2023, Investigator Corlett conducted a compliance job-site inspection. Investigator Corlett found that the only complaint items that Respondent had failed to correct the Directive items, with the exception of complaint items 9, 10, and 11.
10. On August 16, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation that contained allegations that Respondent may have violated Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) Rule 4-9-108(A) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3) and (22). The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that any of the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.
11. Respondent filed a timely appeal to the Citation.
12. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an
evidentiary hearing.
13. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of herself and presented the testimony of her husband, Troy Blair. Mr. Ripps testified on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Corlett testified consistently with his job-site inspection notes and the Directive.
14. Complainant explained that Respondent performed poor work when it remodeled her home.
15. Mr. Ripps stated that Respondent did not timely comply with the Directive due to his illness.
16. Mr. Ripps contended that Respondent appropriately corrected complaint item 15. 6In support of its case, Respondent submitted an invoice dated July 17, 2023, from a Heating and Cooling company (Company). See Respondent’s Exhibit 1. According to the invoice, the Company checked Complainant’s HVAC system and found that the HVAC operated within normal parameters. In addition, the invoice suggests that the Company adjusted various registers to increase air flow to the rooms in the home.
17. Complainant stated that the HVAC was not balanced and that the workers
from the Company did not spend more than 10 minutes in her home. Complainant stated that the workers from the Company did not go in the attic. Complainant alleged that the workers from the Company did not adjust the registers as reflected on the invoice because the registers were closed.
18. Mr. Ripps stated that on or about July 10, 2023, there were workers at Complainant’s home ready to complete work, but Complainant would not allow them to come into her home. Complainant also stated that Mr. Ripps was at her home about three days after the Directive expired and he would not leave.
19. Having given due consideration to the foregoing, and the remainder of the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds that Investigator Corlett appropriately substantiated complaint items 1 through 4, 6 through 13, and 15 at the May 22, 2023 job-site inspection. The ALJ finds that Investigator Corlett correctly found that Respondent had failed to correct the items listed in the Directive, with the exception of complaint items 9, 10, and 11. The ALJ further finds that there was insufficient evidence presented to establish that Respondent was unable to timely comply with the record due to Mr. Ripps’s illness. Although Mr. Ripps testified that he could not timely comply with the Directive by July 5, 2023, the evidence shows that he and a crew of workers were present at Complainant’s home just a few days after the Directive expired.
20. Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s disciplinary history as shown on the Registrar’s public website on November 15, 2023. Respondent’s license record shows that its license was issued on February 28, 2020 and that there is only one open complaint against Respondent’s license. Such prior license record shows that one complaint was resolved or settled by Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party
asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
3. The Administrative Law Judge may consider ROC’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
4. 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).
5. The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent failed to perform the home remodeling project in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to
correct the items listed in the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 ROC License: No. 327913 held by Fripps and Associates, Inc., for one day.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that no future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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, November 15, 2023.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Brianna Hardin
[email redacted]
Richard Hundley, Esq.
[email redacted]
Fripps and Associates Inc.
[email redacted]
Cliff Corlett
Registrar of Contractors
1845 McCulloch Boulevard, Suite B-5
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff