ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-03750-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-11-25
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Rani Elizabeth Olson,
COMPLAINANT
v.
CG Bachelier Masterpieces, LLC
License No. ROC 173663,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-03750-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 12, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Rani Elizabeth Olson appeared on her own behalf. Complainant Witness, John Young. Nancy Bachelier, Member, appeared on behalf of Respondent CG Bachelier Masterpieces, LLC. Respondent Observer, Daniel Bachelier. Registrar of Contractors Investigator, John Smith.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet (Packet) submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
CG Bachelier Masterpieces, LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. ROC 173663 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On November 19, 2020, Rani Elizabeth Olson (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new house build. The total contract amount to build the new home was $379,651.20. The Complainant was informed that the project would take up to six to eight months to move-in to the new home. In the written contract there was no completion timeline drafted into the document.
On March 15, 2021, work began on the project. Although work still needed to be done on the project, Complainant and family moved into the new home on or about June 1, 2022. On or about October 2022, work on the project abruptly stopped. Shortly thereafter, Complainant was informed that Conrad Bachelier, the sole owner of CG Bachelier Masterpieces, LLC, was battling cancer.
On March 19, 2023, Conrad Bachelier passed away.
Complainant became aware of Conrad Bachelier’s passing in January 2024. On or about March 29, 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 John Smith. On April 18, 2024, Investigator Smith sent correspondence to both parties informing each that a jobsite inspection was scheduled on May 16, 2024 at 10:30AM.
Complainant was present at the jobsite inspection on May 16, 2024, in addition to, John Young, Complainant’s spouse. No representative from Respondent was present at the jobsite inspection. After the jobsite inspection, Investigator Smith prepared Jobsite Inspection Notes which provided as follows:
JOBSITE INSPECTION NOTES
Complaint Item 1: “substandard and incomplete finishwork”
Investigator Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a specific workmanship issue, or a specific violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
. . . .
Complaint Item 2: “wrong & low quality cabinets incomplete & poorly installed: kitchen, bathrooms, laundry room”
Investigator Observations: Verified. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Uneven gaps/spacing at doors and drawer fronts
Several doors and drawer fronts delaminating
Areas of missing and incomplete toe-kicks
Damaged/split wood inside doors and drawer boxes
Cabinet panels over-cut at toe-kick cut outs / visible saw cuts
Some drawer boxes not level, causing drawers to self-open
Missing filler panels
Laundry cabinets missing / incomplete / exposed framing
. . . .
Complaint Item 3: “poor quality and incomplete hallway built-in cabinets”
Investigator Observations: Verified. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Doors delaminating
Exposed framing and incomplete drywall inside of cabinet face-frames
. . . .
Complaint Item 4: “electrical for dryer sparked, smoked, and failed – burned wall”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The circuit for the dryer is currently off. The cord plug, and the receptacle, are both visible burnt from an electrical spark/arch.
. . . .
Complaint Item 5: “all exterior doors leaking with rain”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
The move-in date for this house is stated to be 6/1/22
Contractor responsibility on doors warping, and/or shrinking is limited to one year.
Contractor responsibility related to weather stripping is limited to one year.
. . . .
Complaint Item 6: “inrterior doors do not close properly”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
The move-in date for this house is stated to be 6/1/22.
Contractor responsibility related to doors warping, shrinking, fitment, and/or adjustments, is limited to one year.
. . . .
Complaint Item 7: “overhead lights flicker throught house”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. As stated the lighting in the house randomly flickers.
. . . .
Complaint Item 8: “paint and calk covered concrete floors and inch out”
Investigator’s Observations. Verified. The complainant has corrected most areas prior to this inspection. At least one room remains with paint and caulking on the finished concrete floor, around the perimeter of the room.
. . . .
Complaint Item 9: “stairs uneven and squeeke”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Stairs squeak when walking on them. Stair riser heights vary as much as 5/8 inch.
Maximum allowable riser height variation is 3/8 inch.
. . . .
Complaint Item 10: “custom glass window/doors deeplpy scratched all over”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There are significant and visible scratches in the glass of the patio door.
. . . .
Complaint Item 11: “doorbell not installed – cords hanging from wall”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Doorbell, and exterior doorbell button not installed. Wires protruding from walls in both locations.
. . . .
Complaint Item 12: “cracks along entire exterior wall/fence”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Stucco cracks exceeding the acceptable tolerance of 1/16 inch in width
Masonry wall cracks exceeding the acceptable tolerance of 1/8 inch
Masonry crack that extends across/through blocks
Cracks/voids in the stucco around a wall mount light fixture
. . . .
Complaint Item 13: “metal gate and doors do not close properly”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Double gates are sagging, hitting in the center, and not currently functional.
. . . .
Complaint Item 14: “grouting of tile shower floor and walls have holes throughout”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Grout lines are not straight
Grout line are not an even/consistent width
Voids in the grout
Chipped tiles
Poor tile cuts / gaps
Niches not square or level
. . . .
Complaint Item 15: “improperly installed tilework in shower”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Grout lines are not straight
Grout line are not an even/consistent width
Voids in the grout
Chipped tiles
Poor tile cuts / gaps
Niches not square or level
. . . .
Complaint Item 16: “non-functional swimming pool”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). The complainant stated she has already had this corrected by others.
. . . .
Complaint Item 17: “Our contractor, Conrad, died suddenly last year, we still need this work to be finished.”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
. . . .
Addendum Items, submitted by email dated 5/15/24 at 5:32PM
Complaint Item 18: “Here is more detail for the substandard finish work listed on the original complaint:
Painting and caulking inside
Ceiling light fixtures covered with paint”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Some recessed light fixtures are caulked to the ceilings, other are not
Some recessed light fixtures have paint and/or caulking on the fixtures
Paint and/or caulking on door jambs
. . . .
Complaint Item 19: “Here is more detail for the substandard finish work listed on the original complaint:
Baseboards upstairs”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Unfilled or poorly filled nail holes
Chipped / damaged trim
Poorly cut / poorly fitting miters
. . . .
Complaint Item 20: “Here is more detail for the substandard finish work listed on the original complaint:
Cork in upstairs hallway bubbles up
Cork was pulled up b/c of damage from blue tape and reinstalled and the edges curl”
Investigator’s Observations. Verified. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Exposed edges at perimeters, doorways, and transitions to other types of flooring
Damaged edges at transitions to other types of floor
Damaged interlocking seams
Inadequate expansion space at perimeters, doorways, and transitions to other types of flooring
. . . .
Complaint Item 21: “Here is more detail for the substandard finish work listed on the original complaint:
Shelves throughout the house are substandard
Pantry
Upstairs landing
Laundry room
Melamine shelving was painted
Upstairs closets
Built in shelves throughout house”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Specific to the white closet shelving, the following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Poor/exposed cuts at switches
Inconsistent depth of shelves
Some shelves protrude from side panels, other shelves are recessed from side panels.
Excessive gaps at ends of shelves
Specific to the natural finish wood shelving, the following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Shelves not level
Style/construction of shelving is not consistent
Inconsistent depth of shelves
Some shelves protrude from side walls, other shelves are recessed from side walls.
. . . .
Complaint Item 22: “Countertop installation in office nook and pantry”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). As described by the complainant, this was specific to shelving/supports below countertops. The complainant have corrected this themselves.
. . . .
Complaint Item 23: “Stucco overlaps under roof outside and areas are unpainted”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There is stucco on the fascia board, and unfinished stucco behind the fascia board.
. . . .
Compliant Item 24: “Stucco on the house is cracking”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Stucco cracks observed on the house did not exceed the acceptable tolerance of 1/16 inch in width.
. . . .
Complaint Item 25: “Stucco incomplete around outlet on patio over the windows”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There is stucco missing around an exterior receptacle. The receptacle does not have a cover.
. . . .
Compliant Item 26: “Butcher block counter top is improperly supported and the legs are unfinished”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The butcher block countertop of the island has an overhang of approximately 21 inches. The overhanging section of the countertop spans 69-1/4 inches between the lags with no additional support. Additionally, the wood legs are unfinished.
. . . .
Compliant Item 27: “Incorrect measurement of refrigerator nook causing the fridge to stick out”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The west side of the kitchen is not built in accordance with the plans, including but not limited to:
Depth of refrigerator opening
Extra framing between west exterior wall and base cabinets
Location if island
The contract includes:
Contractor shall perform the following described work at 250 East 19th. Street Tucson, AZ 85701 (the “Property”), in accordance with Owner’s contract plans and specifications...
. . . .
Compliant Item 28: “Light switches are mismatched”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There are least four different types/styles of light fixtures installed in this house.
. . . .
Complaint Item 29: “Tile strudel is mismatched and uses multiple pieces”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. “Schluter” tile trim is installed in several tiled areas; kitchen, bathrooms, showers, living room, etc. Specific to the “Schluter” tile trim, the following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards:
Some locations of short cut pieces, as little as one inch in length
Inconsistent installation
Some locations installed flat to the surface of the tile
Other locations installed perpendicular to the surface of the tile
At least two different color trim installed
Poorly fitting seams at corners of trim
Some areas with grout in joints of the trim
Some areas with grout on the surface of the trim
. . . .
ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS
Elements of a Contract
Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s contract is missing the following information:
An estimated date of completion
A payment schedule
Information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the registrar
Contact information for the registrar
[All errors in original.]
Following the jobsite inspection there was no Written Directive issued because Respondent’s License No. ROC 173663 was canceled on April 27, 2023 and the entity status with the Arizona Corporation Commission was “Inactive.”
On May 30, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.
On June 12, 2024, Respondent provided a written Answer to the Registrar where it acknowledged that the sole owner of the company, Conrad Bachelier passed away on March 19, 2023. The Answer further stated that “business ceased prior to or at the time of his death. Unfortunately, we have limited knowledge of the building of the home in question.” Nancy Bachelier reiterated this sentiment at the Tribunal and asserted that if Conrad Bachelier was alive, he would have finished this project in a professional manner.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
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.”
Respondent’s voluntarily surrendered license does not deprive Complainant of her right to prosecute her complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
In this case, an unfortunate set of circumstances occurred which led to the project being unfinished. The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the project in accordance with the plans without Complainant’s consent in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded the plans in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).
In addition, 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 workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
Regarding the construction contract agreement, the contract was missing key elements listed and verified in the jobsite inspection notes. As such, the evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in 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).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 173663 for a period of one day although the License is canceled.
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, November 25, 2024.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff