ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-05355-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-10-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Cynthia Vasquez,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Kora Construction LLC

License No. ROC 333766,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-05355-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 4, 2023

APPEARANCES: Complainant Cynthia Vasquez appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Kora Construction LLC did not appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Kora Construction LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 333766 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about November 22, 2021, Cynthia Vasquez (Complainant) entered into a contract for the purchase of a new home built by Respondent.

On or about June 5, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the home.

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:

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 July 19, 2023.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1 - Caulking on all counter needs to be done

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Inspector observed areas of missing caulk around the kitchen countertop The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 2 - paint missing on walls

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed area in the entryway, master bedroom, front bedroom and garage with missing paint. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 3 - stem wall need to be repaired by garage

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed a large piece of the stem wall missing by the garage door and rear patio. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 4 - stucco missing from areas around outdoor lights

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed gaps between the stucco and the light fixtures on the front and back patio. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 5 - bedroom and laundry door is coming apart

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The laundry room and front bedroom door are separating at the bottoms. Previous repairs do not appear to be holding The Respondent will need to determine the cause and correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 6 - bedroom door frame coming off

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Casing around the door of the front bedroom is coming off. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 7 - seat area in master shower has cracks and needs to be fixed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed a large crack in the master shower seat. The Respondent will need to determined the cause and correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 8 - lights flicker when starting the vacuum and throughout the entire washing machine cycle

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Lights in the master bath flickered during the inspection. Complainant had a load of laundry going at the time. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 9 - cracks between windows and drywall

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed separations between the drywall and window frame in a number of areas. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 10 - dry wall need to be fixed in bathroom by tub

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Drywall is separating at the edge of the shower enclosure of the hall bath. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 11 - nail pops in master bath and kitchen area

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 12 - back door not sealed correctly

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Investigator observed a gap at the top of the door where light is coming in. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent did not perform any corrective work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Carter was notified no corrective work had been performed.

On or about July 24, 2023, Investigator Carter performed a compliance jobsite inspection. During the compliance jobsite inspection, Investigator Carter observed that none of the items identified in the written directive had been corrected.

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).

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on October 4, 2023. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.

A September 5, 2023 order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on October 4, 2023.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Carter testified that all of the notices he issued were sent to Respondent at its mailing address and email address on record with the Registrar. Investigator Carter noted that, in preparation for the hearing, he reviewed the Registrar’s records and saw that Respondent had contacted the Registrar at some point after the Citation was issued and indicated the Registrar had the wrong email address for Respondent.

Complainant testified that she did not have any contact from Respondent since January or February 2023. Complainant stated that she never prevented Respondent from performing corrective work.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 4, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 333766 was first issued on June 21, 2021, 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. 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. 333766 for a period of five 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, October 10, 2023.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Cynthia Vasquez

[email redacted]

Kora Construction LLC

[email redacted]

James Carter

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff