ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-07637-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-12-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Godwin Izasomeh,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Future Homes Development LLC

License No. ROC 315875,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-07637-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 13, 2023

APPEARANCES: Complainant Godwin Izasomeh appeared on his own behalf. Esteban Marquez, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Future Homes Development LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Hearing record submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Future Homes Development LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 315875 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about April 8, 2023, Godwin Izasomeh (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a remodeling project.

On or about July 7, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Daniel Edwards.

On or about July 11, 2023, Investigator Edwards issued Respondent a warning letter for contracting while suspended.

After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Edwards 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 August 25, 2023.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1 - Large room/ living room painting abandonment

Investigator’s Observation: Painting work quoted in agreement has not been completed in the large room / living room as described. Respondent shall ensure all contracted painting is completed by appropriate means.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 3 - visitor toilet

Investigator’s Observation: Toilet in the down stairs bathroom is not secured to the floor and rocks back and forth. Respondent removed and reinstalled this toilet during floor tile installation. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 4 - laundry room faucet

Investigator’s Observation: The freestanding utility sink in the laundry room was reportedly removed and reinstalled during floor tile installation. The unit does not currently function correctly and water flow is subpar. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 6 - wall and ceiling damage

Investigator’s Observation: Walls of the laundry room exhibit peeling paint which appear to have been caused by reinstallation of the utility sink. No ceiling issues were pointed out which would require corrective acetone. Respondent shall address the wall paint issue noted above by appropriate means.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 7 - uninstalled closet door

Investigator’s Observation: Upstairs bedroom closet door has not been installed. Respondent shall ensure this work is completed by appropriate means.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 8 - uneven shower step

Investigator’s Observation: Shower curb is sloped in the wrong direction; water will drain to the outside of the shower. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 10 - and uneven tile placements

Investigator’s Observation: Tile installed at the top of the pony wall between the master bedroom shower and bathtub is not square, causing both the tile and metal trim edging to be out of square and not aligned with the vertical tile at the front side. This requires corrective action.

Floor tile installed at the upstairs bathroom, downstairs kitchen, and downstairs hallway/laundry room exhibits lippage outside of allowable tolerances. Floor tile is large format plank-style tile with 1/4" grout joints. Per ANSI standards, allowable lippage for the tiles in this installation is 1/16". Numerous tiles throughout the areas described were found to exhibit lippage outside of allowable tolerances.

Additionally, grout between tiles is too low and does not reach the cushioned edge of the tiles, leaving most tiles with the bare edge exposed. Grout joints should be evenly finished to the depth of the cushion, per ANSI standards. Respondent shall correct all affected tiles and grout joints by appropriate means.

A couple of days after the written directive was issued, Respondent went to the jobsite and advised Complainant that Complainant would be responsible for moving the furniture and other belongings to allow for the painting to occur.

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

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Edwards testified that Respondent’s license was suspended during the time Respondent performed work on the project.

Complainant testified that Respondent came to his home a few days after the written directive was issued to say Respondent would not be moving the furniture to allow for the painting to occur.

Mr. Marquez admitted that Respondent’s license was suspended for lack of bond during the time Respondent was working on Complainant’s project. Mr. Marquez stated that he believed Complainant was attempting to blame Respondent for damage to appliances at the jobsite, so he did not feel comfortable being responsible for moving furniture and opening Respondent to more accusations of damage. Mr. Marquez maintained that the work included in the written directive would take a day or two to complete and that he intended to perform all the work when he returned to do the painting.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 4, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 315875 was first issued on October 17, 2017, 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 submitted a bid and entered into a contract for Complainant’s project and did not complete the scope of work. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent contracted while its license was suspended or on an inactive status. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent contracted while its license was suspended in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(17).

The evidence established that Respondent did not 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. 315875 for a period of three 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) and $1000.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(F).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalties 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, December 4, 2023.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Future Homes Development LLC

[email redacted]

Godwin Izasomeh

[email redacted]

Daniel Edwards

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff