ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-01309-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-07-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Steve Miller,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Jackson Builders Of Arizona LLC

License No. ROC 335718,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-01309-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 11, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant Steve Miller appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Jackson Builders Of Arizona LLC did not appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits A and B.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jackson Builders of Arizona LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 335718 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about November 21, 2023, Steve Miller (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for an extensive remodel. The estimated date of completion was eight weeks or by February 2, 2024.

On or about February 2, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Todd Anderson. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Anderson 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 March 19, 2024.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1 - Paid Deposit for half the job. Contractor started 12/14/2023. They have only done two days worth of work . . . .

Investigator’s Observation: At the Jobsite Inspection conducted on March

4th, 2024 at 9am, I observed a construction project which was in the beginning phases. The only work which was started but not yet completed was the trenching and partial installation of plumbing for the sewer line in the front yard, some framing in the front bedroom for the eventual construction of an additional room to be added to the residence, and work done to a closet. Some damage to the bedroom ceiling has been done due to rain water seeping through an opening in the roof left by the contractor. The contract was signed and a $40,000 deposit was given on November 22, 2023. Work was commenced on December 14th, 2023. The last communication received from the contractor was on February 1st 2024. The contractor was also not present at the Jobsite Inspection. While unforeseen conditions can arise in construction, the project's timeline has exceeded the acceptable standards within the industry. The Respondent shall perform the work promptly, shall complete the project per the original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, adhere to local building codes and manufactures installation instructions, and complete the project by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform

after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the

abandonment or refusal.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent made no attempts to contact Complainant about the project. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Anderson 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(B); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about April 11, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation in which Respondent did not admit to wrong doing, but indicated it had offered a full reimbursement to Complainant.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on June 11, 2024. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.

A May 14, 2024 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 June 11, 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 Anderson testified consistently with his observations documented in the written directive.

Complainant testified that Respondent last worked on the project on January 5, 2024. Complainant stated that Respondent did not communicate with him after the complaint was filed until the answer was filed with the Registrar on April 11, 2024. Complainant indicated he received an email from Respondent at that time.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 1, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 335718 was first issued on November 29, 2021, and was revoked on May 14, 2024. Such prior License record also reflects that there were two open complaints, one resolved/settled complaint, and one 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.

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. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).

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 for Complainant’s project and did not perform the work in the bid. 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(B).

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 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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 335718.

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)(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, July 1, 2024.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Steve Miller

[email redacted]

Jackson Builders Of Arizona LLC

[email redacted]

Todd Anderson

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff