ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-03463-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-08-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Alberto Figueroa Rosales

COMPLAINANT,

v.

A-Z Restoration & Remodeling LLC

License No. ROC 345340,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-03463-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 1, 2024

APPEARANCES: Alberto Figueroa Rosales (Complainant) represented himself. Anthony Castillo represented A-Z Restoration & Remodeling LLC (Respondent.)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 4.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On June 12, 2024, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-entitled matter for hearing on August 1, 2024 at 1:00 p.m.

2. Though the Notice of Hearing, the ROC alleged that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 32-1154(A)(2)(b),(3), (9)(a), (12), and (22); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108(C); and A.R.S. § 32-1158.

3. A hearing was held on August 1, 2024.

4. Respondent holds license number 345340 issued by the ROC.

5. Anthony Castillo is an owner of Respondent.

6. On or about January 17, 2024, Respondent agreed to remodel Complainant’s home for the amount of $66,600.00. Complainant paid Respondent $50,000 for the project.

7. Respondent did not provide Complainant with a written contract that included all of the required elements listed in A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).

8. On or about January 22, 2024, Respondent started work.

9. On or about February 9, 2024, Respondent stopped work.

10. On or about March 24, 2024, the ROC received a complaint from Complainant alleging abandonment on the part of Respondent. 11. The ROC assigned the complaint to its investigator, Jack Grimm (Investigator Grimm.)

12. On or about April 18, 2024, Investigator Grimm conducted a job-site inspection and discovered the following facts:

Respondent failed to complete the project. Mr. Castillo stated that he would not be able to complete the project based on the contract price.

Extensive work was performed beyond the permit that was obtained for roof repair and stucco repair. The project required a complete remodel permit with plans including but not limited to framing, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, with all code and safety components.

Mr. Castillo and Respondent’s qualifying party were present for the job-site inspection. Mr. Castillo admitted that he was unsure whether the subcontractors used by Respondent for the contract licensed with the ROC.

13. On April 24, 2024, the ROC issued a Directive to Respondent that provided, in relevant part, 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 Wednesday, May 15, 2024.

RESTRICTIONS

You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

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

Complaint Item #1: The services were engaged based on false representations regarding his experience as a General Contractor, and now he is extorting me for more money in top of 50K I gave him.

Investigators Observation: Respondent has stopped working and states he is unable to continue for the dollar amount agreed in contract. Respondent acknowledges he has received $50.000 to date. Complainant states he has paid the 50K of a $66,600 contract agreement and the project is not even close to being completed and states the respondent will not continue to work without receiving more money. The project is a complete remodel with many aspects of the project being entirely redone. Extensive framing, all new electrical, all new plumbing, windows, partial roofing and extensive cleanup has taken place to date. Yet to be completed but not limited to is insulation, drywall, interior doors and trim, painting, kitchen and bath cabinets, tops and fixtures, appliances, plumbing and electrical trims and fixtures, flooring, roofing, stucco, HVAC, fencing and landscaping. The first issue that needs to be resolved is obtaining the correct permit that will most likely require professionally drawn plans as required by the City of Peoria. Per the contract line 5 “licenses and permits – Contractor shall obtain all licenses and permits necessary for proper completion of the work. Owner is responsible for the cost of all necessary permits or licenses including services required from professional vendor (Architect, Engineer, or Draftsman)” The contractor shall submit to the City of Peoria on behalf of the owner all documents (set of working drawing as required by the city provided and paid by owner) required to obtain the necessary code compliant permits. The respondent should not have begun work without the correct permits in place. It appears based on documents provided by the complainant that there was no intention to obtain permits Per “Exhibit A2 Additions – make the additions only if there is enough space and existing roof covers the areas to not have to get permits.” Exhibit A1 and A2 scope of work includes interior and exterior work that requires permits for code compliance. A permit was obtained by the respondent for minor work including partial roof rebuild and stucco work. This permit is not representative of the work that is being performed. Parties state they have had contact with city building officials regarding obtaining the required permits. A contract is in place between parties as “Contractors Agreement/Property Rehab” and signed by the respondent dated 1-17-204 with a total dollar amount of $66,600.00. In part the contract states the contract price will not increase as outlined in exhibit B1-2 (have not been provided with B1-2 docs) Payment of this amount is subject to additions or deductions in accordance with any mutually agreed upon changes and/or modifications of the work.” Respondent states he has performed multiple amounts of additional work however no mutually agreed upon change orders are in place. A couple of documents have been reviewed regarding the scope of work. Exhibit A1 and A2 that outlines work to be performed mostly using the existing material on site and a copy of a text message from A to Z Restoration and Remodeling LLC stating “Materials and labor cost breakdown: each price includes everything needed from beginning to end.” With components of the project listed with dollar amounts to each component. Stating total price of $66,600.oo that matches the contract. However the dollar amounts listed on this text total up to $74,700.00. Contract states “Contractor has gone to the subject property and inspected the property. After measuring and evaluating everything related to the property the contractor has sent the owner a proposal and invoice based on those evaluations. Contractors agrees they will be able to have the property completed within the timeframe requested and for the price agreed on this agreement.” The contract also states required timelines for the work to be completed. The ROC does not make determinations regarding schedules or timelines. *Parties need to work together to obtain the required city code jurisdiction plans and permits. Work needs to be completed by respondent per signed contract and obtain all required code jurisdiction inspections and approvals.

Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(2) Departure from or disregard of Building Codes. 32-1154(A)(3) Poor or Incomplete work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item #2: New roof not installed, new flooring not installed, landscaping decorative rock not installed and not ordered.

Investigators Observation: Work is incomplete per contract. Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor or Incomplete work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item #3: New electrical wiring not completed, plumbing not completed, water lines, material breaks. Investigators Observation: Work is incomplete and not permitted or approved by local building code jurisdiction. Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(2) Departure from or disregard of Building Codes. 32-1154(A)(3) Poor or Incomplete work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner

Complaint Item #4: Texture not completed, new doors not ordered not installed. Nothing is completed in a 1000 SF home.

Investigators Observation: Work is incomplete per contract. Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor or Incomplete work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item #5: New kitchen cabinets not ordered, not installed bathroom enclosures not ordered not installed. Investigators Observation: Work incomplete per contract. Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor or Incomplete work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item #6: Basically nothing is done in this 1000 ft remodel.

Investigators Observation: Many aspects of the work have been performed. Total project is incomplete.

Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor or Incomplete work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

14. Respondent did not correct the Directive items by the due date.

15. On May 12, 2024, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(2)(b),(3), 9(a), (12), and (22); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108(C); and A.R.S. § 32-1158.

16. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.

17. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

18. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Mr. Castillo testified on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Grimm testified consistently with his observations noted in the Directive.

19. Mr. Rosales explained that Respondent only performed approximately 10% of the work under the contract. Mr. Rosales stated that on February 2, 2024, the City Inspector placed a red tag on the house because it was missing a large part of the roof.

20. Mr. Castillo stated that he informed Complainant that Respondent would not be able to obtain permits for the house. However, Mr. Castillo explained that he obtained a permit for the outside of the home, but not for the inside of the home.

However, a permit for the inside of the home was needed for construction. Mr. Castillo stated that he picked up the trash and Respondent performed the demolition work.

Mr. Castillo admitted that he did not pay the air conditioning subcontractor. Mr. Castillo stated that Respondent did not correct the Directive items because Complainant threatened to send him to jail. However, Mr. Castillo also stated that Respondent did not perform corrective work because the parties could not agree on the price.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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 preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not

obtain the required permits for the project, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform

the work in accordance with professional industry standards, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(C), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent attempted to

evade Ariz. Rev. Stat. Title 32, Chapter 10, by aiding an unlicensed person, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(b).

6. The undisputed evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) and A.R.S. § 32-1158, because its contract did not include all of the elements listed in A.R.S. § 32-1158(A)(1) through (9).

7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the ROC’s Directive without valid justification, which is a 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 License No. 345340 issued to A-Z Restoration & Remodeling LLC, for three 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 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. section 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide to the Registrar copies of its form contract that has been revised to comply with the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A)(1)-(9).

If Respondent fails to provide proof that it has so revised its form contracts, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended until Respondent provides such proof.

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, August 21, 2024.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Alberto Figueroa Rosales

[email redacted]

A-Z Restoration & Remodeling LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff