ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-02342-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-07-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ryan Feguis,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Jackson Builders Of Arizona LLC

License No. ROC 335718,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-02342-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 28, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant Ryan Feguis appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Jackson Builders Of Arizona LLC did not appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

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 October 2, 2023, Ryan Feguis (Complainant) entered into an agreement with Respondent for, among other things, the remodeling of a patio. Complainant paid a deposit of $25,180.00 on the total contracted price of $50,360.00. The parties did not execute a written contract with respect to the project.

Respondent did minimal work on the project after October 2, 2023, to include the setting of concrete forms.

On or about February 26, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Fagerburg 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 Thursday April 4, 2024

. . . .

Investigator Note:

1: Upon reviewing the documentation submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is no written contract violating ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliant Item 1: As requested by Jackson Builders of Arizona LLC and/or Stewart Jackson, My wife and I have given a partial down payment of $25, 180.00 to start the remodeling our patio. No work was ever done by the company and completion date was promised by early January 2024. I was able to get my 1st initial payment back of $5036.00 from my credit card co.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where the respondent was to enclose a downstairs covered patio that included a partial enclosure of the upstairs covered patio. During this jobsite investigation the complainant stated that the respondent was on the jobsite to start concrete forming at the ground level patio but never completed the forms. See P (3) thru P (8). Upon reviewing the proof of payment submitted by the complainant I am able to verify the respondent received $20,144.00 on November 13, 2023. Prior to continuing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority and complete the project per contract.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (1) (Abandonment), ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent did not contact Complainant regarding the work to be performed. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Fagerburg was notified no corrective work had been performed.

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).

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 28, 2024. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. A June 5, 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 28, 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 Fagerburg testified he had no communication with Respondent during the pendency of this matter.

Complainant testified that Respondent performed very minimal work on the project.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 18, 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.

Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of his right to prosecute his complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was 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 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108.

The evidence established that Respondent did not provide Complainant with a written contract as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).

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).

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, 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).

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. § 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 18, 2024.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

David Fagerburg

[email redacted]

Ryan Feguis

[email redacted]

Jackson Builders Of Arizona LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff