ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-04535-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-08-09
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Joshua Chavez,
COMPLAINANT
v.
ReModel Everything LLC
License No. ROC 337806,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-04535-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 26, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Joshua Chavez appeared via Google Meet on his own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Jack Grimm appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
ReModel Everything LLC. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 337806 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about September 18, 2022, Joshua Chavez (Complainant) agreed to have Respondent build a 1200 square foot garage/workshop on his property in Laveen, Arizona. The contracted amount was $12,550.00, and Complainant paid the down payment of $8,000.00 on or about September 19, 2022.
On or about April 19, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jack Grimm.
On May 16, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging a possible violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
On or about May 30, 2024 Respondent e-mailed an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about June 11, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on July 26, 2024, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. A copy of the Notice of Hearing was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent’s addresses of record.
On or about June 12, 2024, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order with the Google Meet information, and a copy of the same was e-mailed to Respondent’s email address of record.
At hearing, Investigator Grimm testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline.
Investigator Grimm testified that on May 1, 2024, he contacted Respondent to inform it of the Complaint, however, the phone line just rang and rang and he was unable to leave a message.
Investigator Grimm testified that there was a contract in place, Complainant paid the down payment, but and no work had been done.
Further, Investigator Grimm testified that while he reviewed Respondent’s Answer, there was no formal change order signed by the parties, thus the original contact still controlled.
Complainant testified on his own behalf, and testified that Respondent had problems obtaining the permits for approximately two months. After that, Complainant took over handling the permitting process and after a year, the permit was finally approved.
Next, Complainant testified that once he had the permit in place, he reached out to Respondent who then stated that it was too much work, and wanted to double the contract price.
Complainant stated that Respondent could quit if he received his $8,000.00 back, but Respondent would only agree to return about 30%, claiming he did work for the down payment price.
Further, Complainant testified that he requested multiple times for a breakdown of the costs incurred by Respondent, to determine if the 30% refund was appropriate, but Respondent never remitted the same.
Although the start of the hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Further, Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 9, 2024. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 337806 was first issued on April 27, 2022, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present complaint. Further, the License was suspended as on May 1, 2024 due to non-renewal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano 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 established that Respondent’s took an $8,000.00 down payment, and while he may have attempted to work on the permit, ultimately he never followed through, and never performed any further work once Complainant obtained the permit. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
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. 337806 for a period of thirty days.
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 9, 2024.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
ReModel Everything LLC
410 E Thunderbird Trl.
Phoenix, AZ 85042
Joshua Chavez
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff