ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-10561-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-01-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Cyler Groseth,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Triple Crown Construction LLC

License No. ROC 240678,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-10561-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 8, 2024

APPEARANCES: Cyler Groseth appeared on his own behalf. Respondent failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Amy M. Haley

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing packet and all of its documents contained therein.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Triple Crown Construction, LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 240678 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about April 28, 2023, Cyler Groseth (Complainant) entered into a verbal contract with Respondent for a residential remodeling project.

On or about September 11, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work and abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Brandon Smith. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Smith 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 .October 28, 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 reasons, 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.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1 - Abandonment of Job-

Items not completed:

-Install of Master bathroom showers not complete

-Install of Downstairs bathroom shower not complete

-Install of Downstairs bathroom Vanity, counter top, sink, toilet, light fixture, flooring, and plumbing fixture install not complete

-Drywall repair and texturing throughout house not complete

-interior/exterior paint not complete

-garage floor and exterior concrete epoxy not complete

-rear wood deck, railing, and stairs not complete

-existing light switches being replaced with new decor style light switches not complete throughout home

-interior doors not installed

-closet shelving not installed

-tile back splash in kitchen not installed

-butcher block kitchen counters are poorly cut and do not properly fit or align up ( some butcher block slabs have been destroyed from poor cuts)

-while removing a tree in the front yard the contractors excavator hit the house causing further damage and cracking to a exterior garage wall

- damaged garage wall hit by excavator not repaired

-front landscaping and stairs where the tree was removed not repaired

-the removed tree and stump was left onsite. Owner paid for removal of tree and stump after contractor abandoned job

Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Upon inspection, job left unfinished, contract unfulfilled by respondent. See photos. According to complainant, respondent had not been on the jobsite for longer than 90 days.

Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(1) Abandonment

All errors in original.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent took no action. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Smith was notified that Respondent had made no efforts to re-engage on the project.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On November 21, 2023, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 9:00 a.m. on January 8, 2024. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. A December 7, 2023 order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on January 8, 2024.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Smith testified consistently with his observations noted in his written directive. He also testified that he forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department to cite Respondent for violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22). He testified that, with regard to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158, the parties simply did not have any contract between the two of them.

Finally, Investigator Smith testified that, through Respondent’s written answer to the citation, he learned that Respondent was claiming lack of payment as a defense for stopping work on the project. However, Investigator Smith further testified that he had not received any proof that Respondent had complied with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1185 in order to suspend performance on the project.

Complainant testified that, in addition to the poor work Respondent did perform, Respondent caused extensive damage to the materials that were left behind. He further stated that the parties agreed on a price, and Respondent then demanded more money above and beyond what was originally agreed to. Lastly, he testified that his house was “now a mess” and was not sure how to handle the situation because many contractors that he had consulted with did not want to engage in correcting the work.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 8, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 240678 was first issued on December 27, 2007, and is currently active. Such prior License record also reflects that there was this open complaint, and one prior complaint resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.

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 workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that no written contract existed between the parties. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.

The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Finally, the evidence established that Respondent never returned to the project to re-engage in the work. No evidence was presented that Respondent had complied with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1185 in order to suspend performance on the project. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the verbal contract without legal excuse for the abandonment, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).

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. 240678 for a period of 2 days.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).

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, it is further recommended that 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, January 11, 2024.

/s/ Amy M. Haley

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Triple Crown Construction LLC

DBA: Beavers Construction

[email redacted]

Cyler Groseth

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff