ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-01748-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-09-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Amna Nabri,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Bonum Development & Construction, LLC

DBA: Bonum Development & Construction

License No. ROC 344755,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-01748-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 16, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant Amna Nabri appeared on her own behalf with her daughter, Hind Omer. Respondent Bonum Development & Construction, LLC, doing business as Bonum Development & Construction, failed to appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Todd Anderson appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None

FINDINGS OF FACT

Bonum Development & Construction, LLC, doing business as Bonum Development & Construction (“Respondent”), is the holder of License Number 344755 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about September 21, 2023, Amna Nabri (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform remodeling work at her home.

On or about February 12, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Todd Anderson. After a March 14, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Anderson issued a Written Directive, dated March 28, 2024, 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 April 18th, 2024.

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

Compliance Item: 1 - Contract was based on having project completed in two weeks, contractor failed to follow through schedule. Contractor pressured me to provide him more than 50% of the cost before starting the project. Contractor failed to order products in a timely manner, failed to respond with updates when requested. Financial statements changes.

Investigator’s Observation: Contract was signed and work commenced in September of 2023. As of the date of the Jobsite Inspection (March 14th, in the Master and Powder Rooms have still not been completed.

There have been issues concerning the purchasing of incorrect materials, workmanship, communication and scheduling which have delayed progress of the project. Contractor shall complete all work as per contract, in accordance with local building codes and manufacturer's specifications, and in a timely manner.

Compliance Item: 3 - No paint in the Powder Room

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The contractor has not repainted the

Powder Room after the installation of the new Vanity and light fixture.

Compliance Item: 4 - Master bathroom is not completed. No toilet, no tub/plumbing, no light fixtures, only part of the tile was installed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed a Master Bathroom remodel which was still not completed. The installation of the shower, tub, toilet, shower glass, and all fixtures still needed to be installed. Contractor shall complete all work as per contract, in accordance with local building codes and manufacturer's specifications, and in a timely manner.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Compliance Item: 7 - Downstairs flooring was changed to cheaper poor quality due to being under pressure to finish the project sooner.

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify. Financial Dispute between the two parties.

Compliance Item: 2 - Powder room vanity size is not the one I approved, light fixture position installed incorrectly.

Investigator’s Observation: The contractor did not stipulate the specific vanity which would be installed in the Powder Room. This is a verbal dispute between the two parties. Additionally, there was no written agreement as to the positioning of the light fixture. This is also a verbal dispute between the two parties.

Compliance Item: 5 - Damages to my stove when crew demoed downstairs, damaged front door and furniture

Investigator’s Observation: I observed the damages to the stove, front door, and furniture; however, I was unable to positively determine that the contractor was responsible for that damages.

Compliance Item: 6 - Crew did not cover my furniture when demo was conducted, furniture is very dusty

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify; however, in an email dated

January 4th, 2024, the contractor did offer to have the furniture professionally cleaned.

All errors in original.

Following the expiration of the deadline in the Written Directive, Investigator Anderson ascertained that Respondent had not performed any corrective work.

Thereafter, Investigator Anderson forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

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

The hearing of this matter was initially scheduled to convene on July 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. On the date and time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on her own behalf with her daughter, Hind Omer. Respondent did not appear. Investigator Anderson did not appear. After a fifteen minute grace period, Complainant informed the Tribunal that Investigator Anderson told her that he would not be able to attend the hearing due to being on vacation on the scheduled hearing date. Given the choice of proceeding in Investigator Anderson’s absence or continuing the hearing, Complainant chose to continue the hearing.

On July 3, 2024, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued to the parties a Minute Entry-Granting Continuance and Setting Hearing Via Google Meet that advised the parties of the continued hearing date and time of September 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., and provided the Google Meet link to participate in the hearing either by video or phone. The Minute Entry was sent to Respondent’s email address of record.

On the date and at the time set for continued hearing, Complainant appeared on her own behalf with Ms. Omer. Investigator Anderson was present. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Anderson testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive and the Jobsite Inspection Notes.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Anderson’s testimony. Complainant testified that her contract with Respondent was verbal. Complainant testified that the project was to be completed within a two week time period, that there were many miscommunications, lack of communication, and delays attributable to Respondent. Complainant asserted that she gave Respondent several opportunities to complete the project and that Respondent did not contact her during the period of the Written Directive. Complainant testified that her dealings with Respondent were “stressful” and “frustrating” and impacted her health.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 26, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 344755 was first issued on May 2, 2023, and is suspended. Such prior License record also reflects that there is the instant open Complaint, two (2) resolved/settled complaints, and eight (8) complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(D), “[t]he expiration, cancellation, suspension or revocation of a license by operation of law or by decision and order of the registrar or a court of law or the voluntary surrender of a license by a licensee does not deprive the registrar of jurisdiction to proceed with any investigation of or action or disciplinary proceeding against such a licensee, or to render a decision suspending or revoking such a license, or denying the renewal or right of renewal of such a license.”

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 did not complete the project and abandoned its contract with Complainant without legal excuse. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

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 professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directive and Respondent did not establish valid justification for such failure. 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, and given Respondent’s disciplinary history, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License Number 344755.

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, September 27, 2024.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

[email redacted]

Bonum Development & Construction, LLC

DBA: Bonum Development & Construction

[email redacted]

Amna Nabri

[email redacted]

Todd Anderson

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff