ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-10801-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-05-20
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Stefany Vara Villegas
COMPLAINANT,
v.
REIcon LLC
License No. ROC 319709,34020
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-10801-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 30, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Stefany Vara Villegas (Complainant) represented herself. Chris Riegel represented REIcon LLC (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On March 15, 2024, the Registrar of Contractors (ROC or Registrar) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on April 30, 2024 at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Through its Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have
violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1154(A)(1), (A)(2)(b), (A)(3), and (A)(22).
Respondent holds license numbers 319709 and 34020.
On or about March 8, 2022, Complainant and Respondent entered into residential remodeling contract for the amount of $102,500, wherein Respondent agreed to renovate Complainant’s single family home and add a dining room.
Complainant paid Respondent $100,862.71 pursuant to the contract.
On or about September 19, 2022, Complainant started work.
On or about September 6, 2023, Respondent stopped work.
On or about September 16, 2023, Complainant filed a complaint with the ROC alleging abandonment and poor workmanship on the part of Respondent.
On or about November 9, 2023, Complainant filed an addendum to the complaint.
On December 20, 2023, ROC Investigator Melton conducted a jobsite inspection. Investigator Melton found that none of the work that which Respondent had performed was permitted or inspected by the Building Official. Investigator Melton also found that Respondent failed to complete the scope of work identified in the contract.
On January 9, 2024, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent directing Respondent to correct complaint items 1 – 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19-22, by appropriate means, no later than January 26, 2024.
Investigator Melton extended the deadline to comply with the Directive to January 29, 2024.
Respondent failed to correct the complaint items by January 29, 2024.
The Registrar issued to Respondent a Citation dated February 15, 2024 through which the Registrar alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1154(A)(1), (A)(2)(b), (A)(3), and (A)(22).
Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
A hearing was held on April 30, 2024.
At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of herself. Chris Riegel testified on behalf of Respondent.
Investigator Melton testified consistently with her job-site inspection notes and the Directive. Investigator Melton explained that based on the scope of the contract that consisted of a home renovation and the addition of a dining room, permits and inspections were required.
Complainant explained that Respondent failed to complete the remodeling project and performed poor work.
Mr. Riegel contended that Respondent is not obligated to finish a project that Complainant cannot afford. Mr. Riegel stated that he entered into a cost-plus fee agreement with Complainant. Mr. Riegel stated that the budget increased due to unforeseen conditions. Mr. Riegel stated that after starting the project, Respondent found rodent and termite infestations, inadequate prior renovations, multiple studs that were completely destroyed, and electrical boxes that were open.
19. Mr. Real testified that Complainant agreed to forgo the performance of specific items in the contract to reduce costs. Complainant denied making any concessions.
20. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on May 20, 2024, Respondent’s license was first issued on August 25, 2022, and is currently suspended for lack of bond.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section
41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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).
3. The suspended status of Respondent’s license does not deprive
Complainant of her right to prosecute her complaint against Respondent or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider Registrar’s administrative
record. See A.A.C. § R4-9-118.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned the contract, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1).
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent’s work failed
to meet minimum workmanship standards, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B).
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to correct the Directive items without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 319709 for one three days. 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. section 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 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, May 20, 2024.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
REIcon LLC
[email redacted]
Tom Cole
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Lisa Melton
[email redacted]
Stefany Vara Villegas
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff