ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-06917-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-11-16
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Norma F Hopkins,
COMPLAINANT
v.
A & L Professional Design LLC
License No. ROC 338604,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-06917-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 1, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Norma F. Hopkins appeared via Google Meet on her own behalf. Luis Moreno appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent A & L Professional Design LLC. Investigator Jack Grimm appeared via Google Meet on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Olinka Castellanos was the Spanish Interpreter.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
A & L Professional Design LLC. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 338604 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about March May 31, 2022, Norma Hopkins (Complainant) agreed to have Respondent install doors, baseboards, and remodel both bathrooms and install tile at her residence. The total cost was to be $9,070.00 for Respondent’s labor only as Complainant was to purchase all material. Complainant paid $3,508.00.
On or about June 16, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jack Grimm. The jobsite inspection was performed on July 24, 2023.
Investigator Grimm then issued a written directive on or about July 27, 2023, 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 August 15, 2023.
. . .
RESTRICTIONS
• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.
• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
NOTE: The work regarding the installation of the doors and cabinets is out of scope of the respondent’s license. Respondent is unable to perform or subcontract this work.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item #1: Exterior doors not installed correctly causing poor energy efficiency.
Investigators Observation: Three (3) exterior doors have been installed. The front door, a side door to the carport and a back door. All are poorly installed with poor gap reveal and poorly installed jams, trim and casing. The side door has the incorrect casing that does not match the other door casings and the back door was cut down on the bottom and has no sweep and is unsealed at the bottom. All doors are poorly adjusted with gaps at the bottom.
*Correct all exterior doors for fit and function. Add or correct casing and exterior trim as needed.
Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item #2: Interior doors installed poorly with noticeable gaps from wall.
Investigators Observation: Seven (7) interior doors have been installed poorly. All are poorly installed with poor gap reveal, poorly installed jams and trim and casing.
*Correct all interior doors for fit and function. Correct casing cuts and fit for good function/appearance.
Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item #3: Interior door molding not flush with wall.
Investigators Observation: Interior door casing (molding) are poorly cut and installed.
*Correct casing cuts and fit for good function/appearance.
Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item #4: Exterior back safety iron door not installed.
Investigators Observation: Security iron doors were removed to install new exterior doors. The security/iron door at the back door has not been reinstalled.
*Install back security/iron door.
Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor or incomplete work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item #5: Job abandonment after payment of deposit for remainder of work.
Investigators Observation: Deposits were paid for the installation of new tile for shower surrounds of master, hall bathroom and 420 sq ft of flooring. This work has not been started. Any plumbing or cabinet work as listed in the estimate will need to be performed by a properly licensed contractor and is out of scope for this contractor.
*Complete tile work as agreed per contract/estimate.
Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor or incomplete work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item #6: Estimate given with false pretense of holding a current license.
Investigators Observation: Per the written estimates that are dated 5-31-22 the respondent was not yet licensed. The license for A&L Professional Design LLC was not approved or active until 6-6-22. The license for this entity is a CR-48 Ceramic, Plastic and metal tile license. The work regarding the installation of the doors and cabinets is out of scope of this tile license. This work would require an R-7 Carpentry license.
*Warning letters will be issued.
Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(17) Contracting, offering to contract or bidding while the license is suspended or inactive.
32-1154(A)(16) Knowingly contracting beyond a license’s scope.
(All errors contained in the original).
On September 11, 2023, 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); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - § 32-1158; § 32-1154(A)(16); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about September 12, 2023, Respondent submitted an e-mail to the Registrar acknowledging the Complaint, which the Registrar treated as an Answer.
On or about September 18, 2023, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on November 1, 2023 at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Grimm testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline.
Investigator Grimm testified that Respondent’s license, CR-48, did not cover the installation of the doors, therefore he should not have installed the same. Further because of this limitation, Respondent was unable to satisfy the Directive requirements, unless he entered into a financial settlement with Complainant.
Further, Investigator Grimm testified that the estimates provided to Complainant for the project did not meet the minimum elements of a contract.
Investigator Grimm also testified that there was no work started on the tile installation of the two bathrooms or the other flooring, despite Complainant paying the deposit.
Finally, Investigator Grimm believed that there was more than enough time for Respondent to comply with the Directive as he did not speak with Complainant until September 6, 2023 to determine if the corrective work had been completed.
Complainant testified on her own behalf. She testified that she proceeded with the contract as Respondent stated he had his licenses and was ready to work.
Complainant also testified that there were delays as to when Mr. Moreno would come and work.
Further, Complainant testified that the doors were installed poorly as either they were the incorrect size, or they swung the incorrect way.
As to the tile, Complainant stated that she did not want Respondent to complete the tile work until the doors were completed and that she wanted her money back, to which Respondent refused.
Luis Moreno testified on behalf of Respondent. He acknowledged responsibility for the project and not being licensed when he entered into the contract.
Mr. Moreno offered to give Complainant $1,000.00 to have someone else fix the door or for her to provide other estimates and that he would pay for the same.
As to the tile, Mr. Moreno testified that it was Complainant who delayed that portion of the project as she did not inform him when the tile arrived. Also, Mr. Moreno testified that after the Directive was issued, Complainant would not allow him to complete the tile work until the door issue was resolved.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 16, 2023. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 338604 was first issued on June 6, 2022, and reflected that there was one open complaint, namely the present complaint.
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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Both the interior and exterior doors were installed incorrectly, as there were noticeable gaps, and the iron security door was not installed. Further, no tile work had been completed. 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 also established that the estimates provided did not meet the minimum elements of a contract, and as such Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158.
Further the evidence also established that Respondent knowingly contracted outside of his license when he agreed to install the interior and exterior doors. Therefore, Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).
Finally, the evidence established Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued 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. 338604 for a period of seven 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further recommended that Respondent provide an updated sample contract, which complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158 to the Registrar within 30 days of the effective date of the Registrar’s final order. Should Respondent fail to provide the same, it is recommended that his license remain suspended until he has complied with this order.
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 16, 2023.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
A & L Professional Design LLC
[email redacted]
Norma F Hopkins
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff