ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-11860-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-02-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Erika Montano,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Skyland Roofing LLC,

License No. ROC 329159,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-11860-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 30, 2024.

APPEARANCES: Complainant Erika Montano appeared along with her mother, Evangelina Bravo; Vanessa Larios, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Skyland Roofing LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar’s Notice of Hearing with attachments (ROC record).

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Skyland Roofing LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 329159 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

Evangelina Bravo entered into a contract with Respondent for roofing work based on an insurance-covered roof repair claim.

In August and September of 2023, in two separate payments, Complainant paid Respondent a total of $4,386.30.

Respondent did not begin any work on the project.

On or about October 12, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow. Investigator Johndrow scheduled a November 3, 2023 job site inspection. Respondent failed to appear at the job site inspection.

Investigator Johndrow was able to determine that no work had been performed on the project. At the jobsite inspection, Complainant informed the Investigator that Respondent failed to provide her with a copy of the signed contract. Thus, Investigator Johndrow was able to determine that the contract would not meet the statutory criteria.

Investigator Johndrow subsequently issued to Respondent a warning letter regarding the requisite elements of a written contract.

Investigator Johndrow also forwarded the matter to the legal department.

On November 6, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

In Respondent’s November 30, 2023 answer to the Citation, Respondent indicated that the business was closing due to “unforeseen financial challenges.” Respondent stated that it was working on a plan to reimburse Complainant for the deposit monies that were paid.

At hearing, Complainant testified that Respondent performed no work on the project and they had not received a refund of the deposit monies paid.

Ms. Larios testified that she had undergone a hard time financially and with other circumstances, the result of all of which was that she was unable to fulfill all her contractual obligations. Ms. Larios indicated her other company was not operational, not having been able to get that project off the ground.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 5, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 329159 was first issued on June 4, 2020, and was suspended due to discipline on December 26, 2023. Such prior License record also reflects that there were four open complaints, one resolved/settled complaint, and one prior complaint resulting in discipline 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 the parties executed a contract for Complainant’s project and that Respondent did not perform any work on the project. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence demonstrated that Respondent’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 329159.

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 A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall remain suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, February 5, 2024.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Registrar

Registrar of Contractors

Legal Department

[email redacted]

Skyland Roofing LLC

[email redacted]

Respondent

Erika Montano

[email redacted]

Complainant

Gregory Johndrow

[email redacted]

ROC Investigator

By: OAH Staff