ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-03394-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-09-27
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Zoran Pelevic,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Red Star Handyman & Remodeling, LLC
License No. ROC 310513,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-03394-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: September 10, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Zoran Pelevic appeared on his own behalf. Nikolina Stjepanovic and Biljana Stjepanovic appeared on behalf of Respondent Red Star Handyman & Remodeling, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Mark Nipp appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None
FINDINGS OF FACT
Red Star Handyman & Remodeling, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 310513, Specialty Residential R-62 Minor Home Improvements, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). According to the Registrar’s public website, Nikolina Stjepanovic was Respondent’s Qualifying Party until her disassociation on March 31, 2023. Biljana Stjepanovic is a Manager of Respondent, as is Vlado Stjepanovic.
In or about October 2022, Zoran Pelevic (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for the remodel of a home. The contract price was $28,200.00. Complainant paid Respondent $22,400.00 of the contract price.
On or about April 5, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Mark Nipp. After a May 7, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Nipp issued a Written Directive dated May 14, 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 Monday, June 3, 2024[.]
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item #1: Throughout most of the home, the luxury vinyl flooring (LVT) was installed over the existing tile floor.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified
The Respondent stated they did remove any of the pre-existing tile and did not use any material to level/flatten the tile. The Respondent further stated that they removed the carpet and installed the LVT over everything.
The following flooring was installed by the Respondent; AquaGuard Performance Waterproof Wood-Based Laminate (Affogato Oak – Production Batch 2107773 – Model #57339). (JSI P2).
I located the manufacturer’s installation instructions (20240514_AquaGaurd Performance Flooring Installation Instructions_2024-03394.pdf).
The Complainant had another contractor (Initiative Construction – ROC 345435) remove 2-3 flooring planks in the laundry room to reveal new evidence that the Respondent installed the flooring over the pre-existing tile. The Complainant also pointed out that the bedrooms previously had carpet, which was removed. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent installed the flooring material directly over the concrete in the bedrooms, causing a significant subfloor height difference between the bedrooms and other areas of the house.
I inspected and evaluated this new evidence and noted the following:
(a). I could clearly see that the new flooring material had been installed over the preexisting tile. I saw that the tile had not been floated to remove the depressions of the grout lines. I could also see there was no vapor/moisture barrier installed.
(b). I used a four foot level and a taper gauge to measure the height difference between the hallway (LVT over tile) and southwest bedroom LVT over Concrete) and noted that the bedroom floor was 4.3 mm or about 3/16 inch lower than the hallway (P4-5).
(c). I used a four foot level and a taper gauge to measure the height difference between the hallway (LVT over tile) and middle bedroom LVT over Concrete) and noted that the bedroom floor was 7.2 mm or about 5/16 inch lower than the hallway (P6-7).
(d). I used a four foot level and a taper gauge to measure the height difference between the hallway (LVT over tile) and southwest bedroom LVT over Concrete) and noted that the bedroom floor was 3.7 mm or about 1/8 inch lower than the hallway (P8-9).
I reviewed the manufacturer’s installation instructions and noted the following:
(e). There is no mention of installing the LVT flooring over tile.
(f). A vapor barrier must be installed when the LVT is installed over concrete.
(g). The subfloor must be clean, and level to 3/16 inch within 10 lineal foot span.
SUMMARY: After inspecting the new evidence, speaking with the Respondent, and reviewing the manufacturer’s installation instructions I determined that the Respondent removed the old carpet and installed new LVT flooring throughout the house, including over the pre-existing tile flooring, without a vapor barrier as required by the manufacturer. I also determine that the thresholds of all bedrooms are not even within the manufacturer’s acceptable standards.
The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.
Reference Picture(s) 2-9
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Compliance Item #2: LVT flooring installed beyond tolerance of 1/8 inch over 4 feet throughout the home.
Investigator’s Observation: Not Verified
The Complainant showed me the areas he was concerned with (flatness deviations in the main living area, kitchen, dining room) and I determined those areas had been previously inspected by the Registrar and a determination had been made at that time. The Complainant did not present any new evidence for this particular item.
No further action is required.
All errors in original.
On or about June 1, 2024, Investigator Nipp received a letter from Nikolina Stjepanovic stating the following in pertinent part:
I am writing in response to the Written Directive dated May 14, 2024, regarding complaint number 2024- 03189. I understand the findings of the investigation and the requirement for corrective action.
Unfortunately, I must inform you that Red Star Handyman & Remodeling LLC has ceased operations and is no longer functioning as a business. As a result, we are not able to carry out the required corrective actions specified in the Directive.
We have officially closed the business and dissolved the company. Given these circumstances, we are unable to proceed with the corrections outlined in your Directive.
I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and am available to discuss this matter further if needed. Should you require any additional documentation regarding the closure of the business, please let me know, and I will provide the necessary information.
After receipt of the above letter, Investigator Nipp forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a) and (b), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Investigator Nipp testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes and the Written Directive. Investigator Nipp explained that the instant Complaint is related to two previous complaints filed by Complainant against Respondent. Investigator Nipp testified that he did not verify certain items of the previous complaints because sufficient evidence was not presented at that time to do so. However, with the filing of the instant Complaint, Complainant was able to provide sufficient evidence establishing that the items of Complainant should be verified.
Complainant agreed with Investigator Nipp’s findings and testimony.
Nikolina Stjepanovic testified that the parties discussed how the flooring would be installed and that Complainant agreed to install the flooring without a vapor barrier. Ms. Stjepanovic testified that Complainant supervised Respondent’s work daily, and that he “wanted it done cheaper,” and therefore, agreed to installing the flooring without a vapor barrier. Ms. Stjepanovic asserted that Respondent advised Complainant that it was improper to install the flooring without a vapor barrier, and because of this, Complainant asked Respondent to leave the project and did not want Respondent to return. Ms. Stjepanovic further asserted that the parties’ contract did not call for a vapor barrier.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 25, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 310513 was first issued on December 19, 2016, and was voluntarily cancelled on September 16, 2024. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, two complaints resulting in discipline, and no resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(D) provides that ”[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’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). Further, Respondent failed to follow manufacturer instructions by removing the old carpet and installing new LVT flooring throughout the house, including over the pre-existing tile flooring, without a vapor barrier, as required by the manufacturer, and thresholds of all bedrooms are not within the manufacturer’s acceptable standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in accordance with professional industry standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b).
The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directive and that no valid justification existed 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, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 310513 for a period of seven (7) days.
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 (30) 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)(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, September 27, 2024.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
[email redacted]
Mark Nipp
[email redacted]
Zoran Pelevic
[email redacted]
Red Star Handyman & Remodeling, LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff