2023A-06908-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing and Packet MAILED

2023A-06908-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-10-23

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA Claudia Osborne Harsany , Case No. 2023-06908 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2023A-06908-CHC-ROC v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONTESTED CASE Duran Built LLC License No. ROC 207100,

RESPONDENT.

This Notice of Hearing is issued under A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D).

HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for:

December 7, 2023 1:00 PM Brian Del Vecchio Google Meet. A link will be provided directly from The Office of Administrative Hearings. Go to www.azoah.com to request to appear in-person. If you have requested to appear in-person at the hearing, the hearing will

be held at 1740 W Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

You must attend this hearing. This is an adversarial hearing before an administrative

law judge, and is conducted in a similar manner as judicial proceedings. Thus, you must be

prepared to present evidence, including witness testimony and documents, in support of your case.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION The State of Arizona has determined that the licensing and regulation of construction contractors is a proper state function, and has vested authority in the Registrar of Contractors to administer Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. A.R.S. §§ 32-1101 et seq. All hearings for alleged violations of Title 32, Chapter 10 are conducted under Title 41,

Chapter 6, Article 10. A.R.S. § 32-1156.

The statutes and rules governing the hearing can be found at: Arizona Revised

Statutes §§ 41-1092 to -1092.12, and Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-101 to -122.

PARTICULAR ARIZONA STATUTES AND RULES INVOLVED The statutes and rules the Respondent is alleged to have violated are cited in the

complaint and citation, which were served on the Respondent on September 28, 2023. SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)

Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a)

Charge: 3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. §

Charge: 4 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16)

Charge: 5 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

THE PARTIES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Because Respondent is a licensee and is charged with an act(s) or omission(s) that is

cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Respondent is a party to this case and will

be a party to the hearing.

Because Complainant alleged Respondent committed an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Complainant is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Respondent and Complainant, as the parties to the hearing, will present evidence and argument to the administrative law judge. The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing.

RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED The parties to the administrative hearing may choose to be represented by an attorney. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(B). If one of the parties is a company, the company may be represented

by an officer or employee if that person satisfies the conditions set forth in A.R.S. § 32-

1156(B).

CHANGE OF ADDRESS Each party must inform the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings of

any change of address within five (5) days of the change. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

HEARING PROCEDURES AND RULES The administrative hearing will be conducted in accordance with A.R.S. §§ 41-1092

to -1092.12, and A.A.C. R2-19-101 to -122. The parties should review the statutes, rules, and processes governing the administrative hearing. Copies of the statutes, rules, and articles

regarding the administrative hearing process can be found at https://www.azoah.com/.

REGISTRAR’S APPEARANCE BY VIDEO CONFERENCE OR TELEPHONE

The Registrar’s investigators, employees, and attorneys will appear at the hearing via

video conference or telephone unless requested by a party to appear in-person. Requests for

the Registrar’s investigators, employees, or attorneys to appear in-person must be filed with the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing date.

HEARING PACKET In the interests of administrative efficiency, the Registrar compiles and discloses certain documents to the parties and the Office of Administrative Hearings. These documents are attached to this Notice of Hearing as the “Hearing Packet.” If any party wishes to submit additional evidence, they must do so during the hearing after completing a disclosure statement. See “Disclosure Statement” section below.

SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS OR DOCUMENTS The parties to the hearing must be prepared to present evidence in support of their case. If a party wants to obtain testimony from a witness or documents not in the party’s possession, the party must prepare and file a written subpoena for the Administrative Law Judge to review and sign, if approved. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(C). Forms for requesting a subpoena can be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ website at www.azoah.com. The party seeking a subpoena must serve notice on all the parties to the hearing, and on the Registrar. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT At least seven calendar days before the hearing, each party must prepare and serve a

disclosure statement on all other parties, and file it with the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.A.C. R4-9-118; A.A.C. R2-19-108. The disclosure statement must include any exhibit the

party will use at the hearing. A party’s failure to timely disclose any witness or exhibit, without good cause, may result in the administrative law judge excluding those witnesses or exhibits from being used at the hearing. A.A.C. R4-9-118(C). A sample disclosure form is available on the Registrar’s website at https://roc.az.gov/content/prehearing-disclosure- statement.

CHANGING THE HEARING DATE

The date of the hearing may only be advanced or delayed on the agreement of the parties or on a showing of good cause. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(C). The date of the hearing may be changed by filing a written agreement of the parties to change the date of the hearing. The written agreement must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmitted to the Registrar and all other parties. The assigned Administrative Law Judge may be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ web portal at www.azoah.com If a party would like to move the date of the hearing without agreement of all parties, the party must file a written motion with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the

assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmit a copy to the Registrar and all other parties.

The motion must state in detail good cause for why the date of the hearing should be advanced

or delayed, and the position of all other parties regarding the advancement or delay.

A party may also file a motion asserting a right to an expedited hearing upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances or the possibility of irreparable harm. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(E).

RESOLUTION SHORT OF ADJUDICATION

In any case which is resolved or settled by the parties, or which is withdrawn by the

Complainant without objection from Respondent after the Notice of Hearing is issued, the parties must notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of the resolution or settlement. Any such cases will be listed on the Registrar’s website and its records under the category: “Closed Complaints – Resolved/Settled/Withdrawn.” Dated October 23, 2023.

By: /s/ Erika Hoskin Erika Hoskin Legal Secretary Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail October 23, 2023 to:

Respondent(s) Duran Built LLC 181 Calle Tiburon Rio Rico, AZ 85648 Complainant(s) Claudia Osborne Harsany 104 S Paseo Sarta, Apt. B Green Valley, AZ 85614

Copy sent electronically this same date to: Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar

Case No. 2023-06908 /

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

Hearing Packet FAQ What is the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is a packet of certain documents collected or issued by the Registrar over the course of its investigation.

Who gets the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is assembled and distributed to all parties and to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) prior to an administrative hearing.

What types of cases does the Registrar prepare a Hearing Packet for?

The Registrar prepares a Hearing Packet for Complainant-Handled Cases and No-Pay Cases. Note: If the Docket Number on the Notice of Hearing contains a “CHC” or “NPC”, your case is a Complainant-Handled Case or a No-Pay Case.

What is in the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet contains essential case-specific documents and at a minimum will include the following documents:

● Original complaint;

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

● Citation; and ● Answer.

The Hearing Packet will also contain the following documents (if applicable):

● Jobsite inspection notices, notes, and photos; ● Written directives; and ● Compliance inspection notices, notes, and photos.

What if there are documents missing from the Hearing Packet?

If there is any evidence you submitted to the Registrar that are not included in the Hearing Packet it is your responsibility to introduce that evidence at the administrative hearing. Note: The administrative law judge assigned to your case does not have access to the entire Registrar record.

If there is additional evidence you submitted to the Registrar during the investigation that you also want to introduce as evidence during your hearing, it is your responsibility to:

● Properly disclose that evidence to the other party; and ● Introduce the evidence during your hearing.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Katie Hobbs, Governor Martin Quezada, Director

How do I disclose evidence I intend to use at a Hearing?

You must properly disclose any and all documents and witnesses you intend to use at your hearing according to the Registrar’s Prehearing Disclosure Rules. See Arizona Administrative Code Section R4-9-118.

A sample prehearing disclosure form and instructions are provided to the parties by the Registrar.

How do I obtain documents I previously submitted to the Registrar?

If you previously submitted documents to the Registrar and need a copy of these documents, please contact the Registrar’s Legal Department or submit a public records request at https://roc.force.com/AZRoc/s/roc-public-request.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Complainant: Claudia Osborne Harsany 104 S Paseo Sarta, Apt. B Green Valley, AZ 85614

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Respondent: Duran Built LLC 181 Calle Tiburon Rio Rico, AZ 85648

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 June 28, 2023

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2023-06908

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A formal complaint has been filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for August 4, 2023 at 2:00 PM. The Complainant is required to be present. The Respondent’s attendance is requested and encouraged. The Registrar encourages both parties to make a good faith effort to resolve this complaint prior to the jobsite inspection.

COMPLAINANT: 1. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(1), the Respondent must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen (15) days of receiving this notice. If Respondent is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within the fifteen (15) day time period, the Registrar may be prohibited from taking further action on this complaint. 2. The Registrar may also be precluded from taking further action on this complaint, if the work that is the subject of the complaint is subject to neglect, modification, or abnormal use. A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2) 3. You must provide safe access to any area to be inspected. If access to a roof or other elevated area is required, you must provide a means to safely access the area (ladder or manlift as appropriate). Additionally, please secure any animals.

RESPONDENT: 1. Enclosed is a copy of the complaint. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) you must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen days of the date of receipt of this notice. 2. To assist the assigned investigator in evaluating the merits of the complaint, please submit a response to the enclosed complaint to the assigned investigator prior to the scheduled inspection. 3. If you do not attend the jobsite inspection, your absence may negatively impact the investigation, and your interests. 4. If a building permit(s) was required for this project, please have the building permit information available at the jobsite inspection. If either party needs to reschedule the jobsite inspection, please notify the assigned investigator at least three business days prior to the inspection date to schedule a new date and time. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 If the parties resolve the complaint prior to the inspection, please notify the assigned investigator in writing and by phone as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Gregory Johndrow Gregory Johndrow, Investigator #195 (520) 628-6896 [email redacted] 1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 A Guide to Jobsite Inspections

Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license alleging poor workmanship, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

Jobsite Inspection Rights and Responsibilities Access to inspect: The property owner has complete control over who they allow on the property. However, if the Registrar’s investigator or the contractor cannot inspect the work, the Registrar will not move forward with a citation.

Cooperation: Arizona law enables injured parties to seek relief for damages through several paths. When dealing with a licensed contractor, the Registrar of Contractors’ administrative complaint process may serve as one of those possible paths. However, in order to use that path, the Registrar relies on the cooperation of all parties to a complaint.

Minimum workmanship: The Registrar investigates workmanship complaints for compliance with minimum workmanship and professional industry standards. The Registrar does not issue citations for work that meets these standards.

Scope: The scope of the Jobsite Inspection is limited to items listed in the complaint filed with the Registrar’s office. It is the complainant’s responsibility to point out the complaint item(s) and the Investigators role to review the item(s). If the complainant identifies additional workmanship items not listed in the original complaint, they must file an addendum to the complaint. The Registrar’s Investigator may identify additional administrative violations by the contractor (e.g. work performed out of scope of the license and failure to provide a contract that meets requirements set by Arizona law) at the time of the inspection.

The Role of the Investigator At the Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s investigator will: ● Only investigate the items listed on the complaint form filed with the Registrar. ● Will gather evidence to make an informed decision about the complaint items.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will leave the jobsite and review the evidence provided during the inspection. Generally, the investigator does not make any determination at the time of the jobsite inspection regarding whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Questions? If you have already filed a complaint and it was assigned to an investigator, you are encouraged to contact that investigator directly with the information listed in your jobsite inspection letter. If you have not filed a complaint yet or have not been assigned an investigator, you can reach the Registrar’s compliance department at (877) 692-9762. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 A Guide to Written Directives Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will determine whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Written Directives Access: In order to use the administrative process offered by the Registrar, a property owner must provide reasonable access to allow the contractor to fix their work as directed by the Registrar in a Written Directive. Complainants may not put any additional, unnecessary restrictions on the Respondent above and beyond the initial contract requirements agreed upon at the beginning of the project. Respondents are required to make repairs on items identified on any Written Directive, not otherwise restricted by local code or HOA limitations. Complainants must make access available to the Respondent to make the required repairs and failure to provide reasonable access may result in the Registrar dismissing the complaint.

Contractor obligations: The Written Directive will set a deadline for compliance. This is the period of time determined by the Investigator as necessary to complete the items listed in the Directive. ● The deadline for compliance assumes the contractor will promptly begin working on the items listed in the Directive. ● Do not wait. Both parties should communicate quickly to schedule the work.

Extensions: If good cause exists to extend this deadline, either party may submit a written request to the Investigator. The Registrar will review requests for extension and determine if the Directive should be extended.

Manner and method of performance: The Registrar does not provide specific instructions for how to correct poor work. A licensed contractor is expected to have the skill and professionalism to complete the work. Moreover, the complainant may not dictate the manner of repair. If the contractor fails to appropriately correct the work according to the contract, the Registrar will issue a citation.

Compliance Inspection: After the Written Directive expires, the Registrar’s Investigator will contact the complainant to determine if the contractor performed any corrective work. ● If the contractor did corrective work, the Investigator may schedule a Compliance Inspection to determine if the poor work is corrected. ● If the contractor did not perform any corrective work, the Registrar’s Investigator will not do a Compliance Inspection and will determine whether to issue a citation based on the administrative record.

Work performed after the directive ends: After the Directive period ends, a property owner may choose to allow the contractor to continue its work. The Registrar encourages parties to work cooperatively, but cannot 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 require a homeowner to continue to allow a contractor access to the property after the Directive period ends in order for the administrative process to continue. Denying access after the Directive ends is not grounds to close or dismiss a complaint.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 7/5/23, 3:58 PM State of Arizona Mail - Gregory Johndrow has shared "20230628 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2023-06908.pdf" + 3 files with you

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Gregory Johndrow has shared "20230628 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2023-06908.pdf" + 3 files with you JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM To: Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Item 1. Julia told me to find someone else.

Text is from January 24. 2 weeks after contract date. In this text She is not telling me she would like me to correct issues. At end of every workday, I go over any issues and told her that the residences require touch ups and corrections. She said "okay" then I get this text the next day of her not allowing me to work. Tear out of bathroom ceiling is complete, Tear out of bathroom south wall is complete. Texture of bedroom ceiling and kitchen and bathroom ceiling and southwall is complete and painted as to her choice of paint. Vanity reinstalled and toilet reinstalled etc. Get Outlook for Android

From: Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 2:18:01 PM To: [email redacted] <[email redacted]> Cc: [email redacted] <[email redacted]> Subject: Gregory Johndrow has shared "20230628 Jobsite Inspection Notice 2023-06908.pdf" + 3 files with you

[Quoted text hidden]

Screenshot_20230705-152030_Messages.jpg 266K

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 7/5/23, 3:58 PM State of Arizona Mail - Item 2. Claudia Hernasey

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Item 2. Claudia Hernasey JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 3:41 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

Complaint item 2. Said he would deliver counter top failed to. My response to ROC Tuesday January 24 she says don't talk to me today. Friday February 3 she says drop the counter top off Ill get someone else

Get Outlook for Android

Screenshot_20230705-153729_Messages.jpg 192K

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 7/5/23, 3:59 PM State of Arizona Mail - Item 3 Claudia hernasey

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Item 3 Claudia hernasey JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 3:50 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

Item 3 has been paid for job not complete.

My Response to ROC: final payment has not been paid by complainant. Final payment of $2320. Not received. "Paid for job" is saying she paid $9280, she did not. Get Outlook for Android

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 7/5/23, 4:00 PM State of Arizona Mail - Item 4 Shoddy work Claudia hernesay

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Item 4 Shoddy work Claudia hernesay JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 3:55 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

Item 4 Shoddy work

My response: a work in progress, complaint was premature . We had 12-14 weeks to complete project and 2 weeks after starting and telling her I am not ready for inspection and we need to correct minor issues she complied. The next day she changed her mind.

Get Outlook for Android

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 7/5/23, 4:19 PM State of Arizona Mail - Item 5 Claudia Hernasey

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Item 5 Claudia Hernasey JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 4:13 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

ITEM 5 did not want to follow insurance guidelines.

My response: This American Family insurance assessment in the amount of $13276, submitted to the ROC , is null and void and does not reflect a reconsideration by American Family for $6915

The Assessment reconsideration paid after American Family performed a reinspection was for $6915 Note: Mold test from each room for harmful mold test were sent in and came back negative. Claudia has copies of test results. Get Outlook for Android

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 7/5/23, 4:20 PM State of Arizona Mail - Item 6 Dishonest

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Item 6 Dishonest JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 4:17 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

Item 6: Dishonest

My response: This item does not have any merit.

Get Outlook for Android

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 7/5/23, 4:43 PM State of Arizona Mail - Items 7 and 8 Claudia Hernanesy

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Items 7 and 8 Claudia Hernanesy JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 4:25 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

Item 7 and 8 : his workers have no experience; tools

My Response: I don't see any merit other than an attempting coercion.

Get Outlook for Android

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Items 10.and 11 Claudia Hernasey JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 4:34 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

Item 10-11 : not cleaned up and telling me to put furniture back.

My Response; more of a coercion statement to attempt financial gain after major portions of work completed.

Get Outlook for Android

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 7/5/23, 4:43 PM State of Arizona Mail - Item 12 Claudia Hernasey

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Item 12 Claudia Hernasey JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 4:37 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

Item 12: painted kitchen in flat paint.

My response: Customer approved paint type and color test prior to beginning painting.

Get Outlook for Android

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 7/5/23, 4:47 PM State of Arizona Mail - Item 13 and 14

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Item 13 and 14 JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 4:46 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

Items 13 - 14 hung mirror as if painting items were done. Tried to fix things and made worse.

My Response: a work in progress after 2 weeks of work of a 3-month contract is not subject to terminating a contractor. Customer was supposed to stay with friends then cancelled her stay and the contractor was making home habitable. Get Outlook for Android

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 7/5/23, 4:56 PM State of Arizona Mail - Item 16 Claudia Hernesay

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Item 16 Claudia Hernesay JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 4:54 PM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

Item 16 There were changes made by Julian I wasn't aware of the first estimate was around 140000

My response: my first estimate for approx. $14000, was for more work. Customer ask how much to remove all the ceilings as per initial American Family estimate. Kitchen Bath living and bedroom ceilings reinsulate sheet rock texture paint etc.

Get Outlook for Android

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 7/10/23, 8:38 AM State of Arizona Mail - Claudia hernasey Shed complaint

Gregory Johndrow <[email redacted]>

Claudia hernasey Shed complaint JULIAN DURAN <[email redacted]> Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 7:25 AM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>

1. Poor workmanship My reply: a workmanship walk through was conducted with the customer. Contract states payable upon satisfaction. Shed was paid in full. All issues are covered under warranty. Lifetime as long as homeowner resides in home. 2. Deceiving not sure about licensed. My reply: valid contractors license on hand. Did not deceive customer. 3. Collected money before completed to pay his help. My reply: terms are documented in contract. 4. Charged for wrapping pipes to be included. My reply: wrapped pipes in hot water heater room and supplied hot water heater blanket. Separate item not included in Shed contract. Customer paid as per invoice $160 for materials and labor. Customer paid a $10 tip for contract. 5. His math and money he asked for never adds up. My. Reply: customer did not ask for contractors help to perform audit. I think she is looking at credit card account. 6. Things discussed prior to contract not done. My reply: Items agreed upon are listed on contract. 7. Same complaint as item 4. 8. Same as item 4 9. Had gate built not in contract. My reply: separate project. Customer understood this was separate and paid $800. 10. Same as item 9 11. Included in contract as discussed. My reply: items in contract as discussed were done.

Julian Duran Duran Built 520 603 0916 Get Outlook for Android

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=27cddfbaec&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Case No.: 2023-06908 Investigator: Greg Johndrow #195 Inspection Date: 8/4/2023 Inspection Time: 2:00 PM

Complainant: Claudia Harsany Respondent: Duran Built LLC

Overview of project: Remodel and addition General Notes: The site inspection was performed on this date and time with both parties present. In attendance for the respondent was Julian Duran. Photos taken with agency issued Canon PowerShot ELPH180. Audio recorded with agency issued Olympus recorder.

Complaint Item 1: “Julian told me to find someone else, he quit.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 2: “Said he would deliver countertop failed to.” Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The respondent has not installed the counter tops as stated in the contract. The respondent shall complete this work as stated per contract. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Complaint Item 3: “Has been paid for job not complete” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue to inspect or report on. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 4: “Shoddy work.” (This is the complainant’s description to me of the bathroom base boards not painted, the loose bathroom light fixture and the poorly patched drywall above the towel bar.) Investigator’s Observations: Verified. I observed the base boards are primed and were not painted, the light fixture is loose and there are two drywall patches above the towel bar that are unsightly. The respondent shall perform the necessary corrections in these locations. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 5: “Did not want to follow insurance guidelines” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 6: “Dishonest.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes

Complaint Item 7: “His workers have no experience.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 8: “Don’t have proper tools.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 9: “Didn’t provide plastic containers per, store personal items” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 10: “Paint entry. Inside not cleaned up. Kept telling me to put furniture back as if painting was done. ” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 11: “Painted kitchen bathroom. In flat paint. ” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 12: “Hung mirror other items as if painting done” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 13: “Every time workers came back fix what they messed up made worse.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 14: “There was changes made by Julian. I wasn’t aware of. So first estimate was around 14,000.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 15: “Poor workmanship.” (This is the complainant’s description to me of the nails protruding through the plywood on the underside of the patio cover, the gutter not sealed at the down spout, the loose door handle on the utility room door and the unsightly spray foam application around the pipes and the framing inside the utility room.) Investigator’s Observations: Verified. I observed the nails used on the patio cover have penetrated through the underside of the plywood, the downspout connected to the roof gutter is not sealed, the door RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes handle installed on the utility door is loose and the spray foam applied inside the utility room has an unsightly appearance. The respondent shall perform the necessary corrections in these areas. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 16: “Deceiving – Not sure if he had license.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 17: “Collected money before completed to pay his help.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 18: “Charge me for wrapping pipes to be included.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. Although this complaint item alleges a financial dispute with the respondent, it alleges nothing indicating grounds for discipline under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 19: “His math and money. He asked for never adds up.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 20: “Things discussed prior to contract weren’t done.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 21: “Charge $120 wrap pipes going into shed. This was supposed to be done and included when shed was built. ” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. Although this complaint item alleges a financial dispute with the respondent, it alleges nothing indicating grounds for discipline under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 22: “Invoice 188806 – paid $170. CK, #103 Total should have been $160.” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. Although this complaint item alleges a financial dispute with the respondent, it alleges nothing indicating grounds for discipline under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 23: “Had gate built, he did not include in contract, had to put out another $800 not included in contract, as we discussed and led to believe all wiring would be done. No new breaker box. ” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were verified:

Warning Letter: Elements of a Contract. Warning Letter: Performing permit required work without a permit being obtained. Warning Letter: Working beyond scope of License.

RCC100 11/14

Picture 1 Jobsite Inspection Photos

Case: 2023-06908 Date: 8/4/2023 Address: 104 S. Paseo Sarta Unit B; Green Valley, AZ 85614 Picture 2 Jobsite Inspection Photos

Case: 2023-06908 Date: 8/4/2023 Address: 104 S. Paseo Sarta Unit B; Green Valley, AZ 85614 Picture 3 Jobsite Inspection Photos