ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2023A-06015-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Christopher Walsh,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Envision Landscape and Design LLC
License No. ROC 338258,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-06015-RFA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 21, 2025.
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin appeared for the Registrar of Contractors. Christopher Walsh appeared on his own behalf. Respondent failed to appear.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department’s Exhibits 1 through 11. Complainant’s Exhibits.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Envision Landscape and Design LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 338258 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on May 18, 2022.
On or about May 25, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Christopher Walsh (Complainant) alleging poor work.
After an investigation a written directive was issued to correct the work. The Directive from the Registrar specified that:
Compliance Item: 1 - Large rocks in clean fill dirt;
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is gravel (3/4-) spread around under the sod. Per the contract (Grading - Grade the entire yard leveled and bring in clean fill dirt and mulch for sod) There should be clean fill and mulch under the sod, not gravel.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.
Compliance Item: 2 - Irrigation protruding above grade;
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The irrigation pvc is installed in such a way that the top of the pipe is visible prior to sod installation. Per irrigation standards, the pvc lateral irrigation lateral lines should installed with at least six inches of cover for crush protection and to alleviate dry strips in the sod.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Compliance Item: 3 - Weed barrier not installed/missing;
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is evidence of areas where weed barrier is not properly installed. Contractor should verify these areas and repair by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Compliance Item: 4 - Incorrect concrete footing positions;
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are six footings installed for a covered structure. The footings are installed incorrectly per local building authority (Too close to existing Structure). The footings are also the incorrect size at the top to receive the prefabricated structure. The concrete footing should be the adequate size to accept the post and hardware and should be located in an area approved by the local building authority. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
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.
Compliance Item: 6 - Working without a permit when a permit is required per local building authority.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The covered structure requires a building permit per the local building authority. The contractor installed footings for the structure without permits or inspection. Footings should be approved for permit and inspected by the local building authority. Contractor should facilitate footing approval, proper placement and size, and make repairs/corrections by appropriate means.
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.
Respondent did not do any work during the directive period.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); A.R.S. § 1154(A)(3), specifically Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1158; A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation, and an administrative hearing was held. In his Decision, Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio considered Respondent’s arguments and concluded that Complainant established Respondent had, in relevant part, violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) with respect to all of the Directive Compliance Items. The Administrative Law Judge recommended a five-day suspension of Respondent’s license.
On or about November 21, 2023, the Registrar issued its Final Decision, adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision in full.
Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (the Fund) to recover the cost of completing or repairing the project. As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different contractors that Complainant had received to correct the project.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s compensable actual damages were $30,000.00. Respondent requested a hearing, believing the payout was too high and offering to complete the work himself. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative payout. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
A hearing was held on February 21, 2025.
Gail Matthews testified for the Registrar. Ms. Matthews testified that Complainant was eligible and followed all of the steps required to receive an award from the recovery fund. She testified in support of the documents and calculation provided in the exhibits. She testified in support of Complainant being entitled to a $30,000.00 award.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the order setting the virtual hearing to Respondent at its email address of record.
A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
An award from the residential contractors’ recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor’s violation. Actual damages:
1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.
2. Must be established by bids supplied by or the value of work performed by a person that is licensed pursuant to this chapter if the person is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter.
Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect 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.”
If work is not completed to workmanship standard, it is reasonable for a bidding contractor to include removal of prior work. The bidding contractor is not obligated to accept the condition of existing work.
Respondent had an opportunity to correct the faulty work following the written directive from the Registrar and failed to do so.
The preponderance of the evidence established that the award provided by the Fund accurately reflected Complainants’ actual damages. Accordingly, Complainants are entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $30,000.00.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainants receive a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $30,000.00.
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, March 12, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Envision Landscape and Design LLC
[email redacted]
Christopher Walsh
[email redacted]
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff