ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-06678-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-12-07
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jason Arford,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Casey Daniel Rodman
DBA: Desert Dynamics Construction
License No. ROC 324291,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-06678-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 4, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Jason Arford appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Casey Daniel Rodman, doing business as Desert Dynamics Construction, failed to appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Clifford Corlett appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: No Exhibits offered; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Casey Daniel Rodman, doing business as Desert Dynamics Construction (“Respondent”), is the holder of License Number 324291 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about September 2, 2022, Jason Arford (“Complainant”) purchased his newly constructed home that was constructed by Respondent.
On or about June 13, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the construction of the home.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Clifford Corlett. On July 5, 2023, Investigator Corlett conducted a Jobsite Inspection at which Respondent was present. On July 14, 2023, Investigator Corlett 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 or before August 14, 2023.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 1 - Driveway concrete chipping/breaking.
Investigator’s Observation: The Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors (WSLC) states that: Chipped or broken corners in concrete may occur during construction. These chips and broken corners are unacceptable at move in.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS MATCHING SURROUNDING AREAS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
Compliance Item: 3 - Backyard water spigot not secured.
Investigator’s Observation: Exterior water spigots should be secure and not easily movable. These moved fairly easy.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
Compliance Item: 4 - Water spigot north side loose.
Investigator’s Observation: Exterior water spigots should be secure and not easily movable. These moved fairly easy.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
Compliance Item: 6 - Fascia north side towards back.
Investigator’s Observation: Bird blocking was missing on house eave.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
Compliance Item: 9 - Garage access door not aligned.
Investigator’s Observation: The Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors (WSLC) states that adjustment of doors, windows and weather stripping becomes homeowner maintenance after first year of occupancy. Occupancy is listed as Sept 5, 2022. RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY
ADJUST ANY ALL WINDOWS, DOORS, SCREENS AN WEATHERSTRIPPING THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY HANGING AND OR OPERATING PROPERLY.
Compliance Item: 10 - Garage concrete chipping/breaking.
Investigator’s Observation: The Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors (WSLC) states that: Chipped or broken corners in concrete may occur during construction. These chips and broken corners are unacceptable at move in.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS MATCHING SURROUNDING AREAS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
Compliance Item: 11 - Front door not aligned properly.
Investigator’s Observation: The WSLC states that: Doors should clear 1/18-inch on sides and top. The front door (and others) were observed to be touching / binding on the frames.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
Compliance Item: 13 - Celling fan in front room loose.
Investigator’s Observation: Ceiling fan was making annoying sound. Could be Manufacturers Issue.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
If cause of sound is factory defect, the Respondent would not be responsible to correct.
Compliance Item: 14 - Living room not painted.
Investigator’s Observation: Paint cut in not proper/ complete in living room and other areas.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS, MATCHING SURROUNDING AREAS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
Compliance Item: 16 - Sliding screen door not installed properly.
Investigator’s Observation: Screen door appeared to have been installed without wheels.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS SO THAT SCREEN DOOR OPERATES PROPERLY.
Compliance Item: 17 - Carpet in all bedrooms not installed properly.
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent representative agreed that the carpet needed some re-stretching.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
Compliance Item: 18 - Multiple inside doors not aligned properly.
Investigator’s Observation: The WSLC states that: Doors should clear 1/18-inch on sides and top. The front door (and others) were observed to be touching / binding on the frames.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
Compliance Item: 19 - Front bathroom sink loose.
Investigator’s Observation: Any pedestal sink will move if enough force is applied. This appeared to be a typical installation however the sink should be caulked to the wall to help stabilize the sink.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
Compliance Item: 20 -Front bathroom not fully painted.
Investigator’s Observation: Paint cut in not proper/ complete in bath room and other areas.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS, MATCHING SURROUNDING AREAS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
Compliance Item: 25 -Pantry door does not close.
Investigator’s Observation: Door margins /gaps very wide on striker side of door. Door bolt is contacting the strike plate too low to properly latch.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
Compliance Item: 26 - Island countertop not cut properly.
Investigator’s Observation: Island countertop is not cut square.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Compliance Item: 2 - Stucco cracked around doorbell.
Investigator’s Observation: Hairline stucco crack noted at front doorbell. The WSLC states that until stucco cracks exceed 1/16-inch they do not require any corrections.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
Compliance Item: 5 - Stucco on north side cracked towards back of house.
Investigator’s Observation: Hairline stucco crack noted at rear / side of house. The WSLC states that until stucco cracks exceed 1/16-inch they do not require any corrections.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
Compliance Item: 7 - Foundation appears to be cracked, north side.
Investigator’s Observation: Foundation cracks were normal / minor crack.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
Compliance Item: 8 - Foundation appears to be cracked, south side.
Investigator’s Observation: Foundation cracks were normal / minor crack.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
Compliance Item: 12 - Floor not leveled, living and dining area.
Investigator’s Observation: No significant variations in the tile flooring was noted.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
Compliance Item: 15 - Sliding glass door not sealed.
Investigator’s Observation: Complainant has installed a "Doggie Door" sliding glass door insert that does not allow the two factory doors to completely close where the frames and weather-stripping can properly engage.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
Compliance Item: 21 - Vent above stove.
Investigator’s Observation: Code does not require stove to vent to outside if a properly listed & labeled range hood is installed. Respondent stated he would check that the installed microwave range hood was set up properly when installed.
**NOTE** Vent less hoods do require homeowner maintenance of filter changing.
Compliance Item: 22 - No plumbing for refrigerator.
Investigator’s Observation: Insufficient evidence to support allegation that water line was to be installed to refrigerator.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
Compliance Item: 23 - Cabinetry around refrigerator not hung properly.
Investigator’s Observation: Cabinetry comes in standard sizes and opening for stoves, dishwashers and refrigerators are also standard.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
Compliance Item: 24 - Countertop and cabinets not squared (Stove area).
Investigator’s Observation: Stove area countertop and cabinet appeared to be typical for straight and square.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
On August 22, 2023, after the expiration of the time period specified in the Written Directive in which to perform corrective work, Investigator Corlett ascertained through communication with Complainant, that Respondent had not performed any corrective work and had not made any contact with Complainant.
On September 6, 2023, Investigator Corlett authored Compliance Jobsite General Notes that state the following:
Compliance Jobsite General Notes: On July 14, 2023 the Registrar of Contractors issued a Written Directive to Casey Daniel Rodman DBA: Desert Dynamics Construction in the matter of complaint 2023-06678 filed by Jason Afford, 418 Chardonnay Way, Bullhead City, AZ 86429. That directive instructed the Respondent to properly correct 16 of 26 workmanship complaint allegations. The directive had a compliance due date of August 14, 2023. On or about August 22, 2023 the Complainant contacted the ROC to inform that the Respondent had made no contact nor made any repairs nor made any settlement offers.
Compliance Findings: RESPONDENT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
Thereafter, Investigator Corlett forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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 Corlett testified consistently with his findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes, the photographs taken during the Jobsite Inspection, Written Directive, and Compliance Jobsite General Notes. Investigator Corlett testified that he verified 16 of the 26 items of Complaint.
Complainant agreed with Investigator Corlett’s testimony and the Written Directive, and expressed frustration because he purchased a brand new home and there are several deficiencies that Respondent has not addressed. Complainant testified that he has had no contact with Respondent.
On October 17, 2023, the Registrar issued the Notice of Hearing in this matter advising the parties of the hearing date and time and that a Google Meet link for participation in the hearing would be issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties’ respective mailing and email addresses of record with the Registrar. On October 18, 2023, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued to the parties an Order Setting Hearing Via Google Meet. That Order was sent to the parties’ respective email addresses of record and it contained the Google Meet link to join the hearing by video or by telephone. Respondent did not appear for the hearing through an authorized member, employee, or attorney, notwithstanding proper notice of the hearing.
Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 6, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 324291 was first issued on April 22, 2019, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are two open complaints, no resolved/settled complaints, and two complaints resulting in discipline 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’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and 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 complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and that valid justification for such failure did not exist. 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 Number 324291 for a period of seven (7) 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 (30) 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)(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, December 7, 2023.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
[email redacted]
Jason Arford
[email redacted]
Casey Daniel Rodman
DBA: Desert Dynamics Construction
[email redacted]
Cliff Corlett
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff