ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-05098-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Andrew Beaufeaux,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Hacienda Builders, LLC

License No. ROC 332914,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-05098-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 31, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant Andrew Beaufeaux appeared on his own behalf. Paul Sweeney appeared on behalf of Respondent Hacienda Builders, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Daniel Otero appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice was taken of the Agency Record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Hacienda Builders, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 332914 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Paul Sweeney is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Manager.

On or about October 3, 2022, Andrew Beaufeaux (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for the construction of a custom home.

On or about May 3, 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 Daniel Otero. After a June 6, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Otero issued a Written Directive to Respondent, dated June 17, 2024, 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, July 8, 2024.

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

Complaint Item: - Incorrect mechanical equipment provided; poor craftsmanship

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated the cover for the main air handler cover did not fit on the unit as it should. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Exterior trim paint needs to be re-touched

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: - Mismatched light fixtures in master bathroom

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated there were different fixtures in the same bathroom right next to each other over the vanity. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor. Note there were also no specifications on which light was supposed to be installed but the lights are different.

Complaint Item: - Basement bath faucet leaking

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated the hot and cold were reversed in the tub/shower. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Fireplace door broke

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated the fireplace door did not function as intended. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means Verified.

Complaint Item: - Need touch-up paint in multiple locations

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed the paint final was not completed. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Deck paint is already peeling, as contractor applied in sub-standard conditions

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed there were multiple areas where the paint was peeling off of the deck boards and some areas of the hand rail were not painted. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Master bedroom door doesn't latch completely

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated the door did not latch shut. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: - Master tub faucet assembly not properly secured to floor

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated the tub/shower trim assembly was not installed properly. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: - Utility room not painted

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the inspection it was observed the room was only primed and not painted. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: - Stone guys made huge mess on concrete and did not clean up

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated there was residue left on the entry way and various spots on the driveway. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: - Holes in drywall for lights overcut in many locations

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed there were minor gaps around a few of the can light fixtures. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: - Electrical devices trim not flush and/or crooked in many locations

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated there were many outlets and switches that were not level. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Decorative beams in living and kitchen/dining not installed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated the faux beams on the plans were not installed in their locations. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Missing screw in upper left corner of garage electric panel trim

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - French doors in living room need touch-up

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Cover missing for low-voltage box in pantry

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Writing on drywall under microwave

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Cabinet door installed unevenly

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Basement tub missing overflow cover

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed the overflow tub/shower trim was not installed and laying on the rim of the tub. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Contractor did not install screen-wall at AC unit

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: - Contractor did not install air exchanger

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed the air exchanger was laying on the floor at the end of the stairwell. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Drywall damaged and missing paint at barn door to master toilet

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed there is some unfinished work at the barn door. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: - Electrical outlet covers outside do not all match (different colors)

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed there is one exterior cover that is white instead of gray like the other exterior outlets. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

Complaint Item: - Caulking incomplete in master shower

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: - Exhaust fans and air grilles turned over to owner and installed by owner; still missing some air grilles

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed and demonstrated the HVAC register was missing by the fireplace in the mail living room. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

All errors in original.

Investigator Otero conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection on July 18, 2024. At that inspection, Respondent was granted an extension to complete any remaining items of corrective work.

On August 27, 2024, a second Compliance Jobsite Inspection was conducted. Investigator Otero’s Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes indicate that the only remaining item of corrective work was as follows:

Complaint Item: - Caulking incomplete in master shower

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the compliance inspection it was observed by all parties involved this item was incomplete, it was also discovered at the time of the repairs, there was water infiltration behind the shower tiles from potential areas where caulking was needed to aide in waterproofing. Although, there’re many possibilities of where water was infiltrating, there were many tiles that were removed to mitigate the damage from the water infiltration. Upon the tiles being removed where mitigation occurred, the process to put everything back in place was attempted. After multiple attempts to install new tiles without chipping the edges and making the repairs appear seamless, more of the existing tiles were damaged making the project increasingly larger than expected. It was determined the only way to make the corrections would be to start all over on the entire effected shower walls. This was not something the respondent was willing to do as a result the shower was put back together with chipped, substandard completion. The shower is functioning but the corrective damages behind the wall have not been verified nor will they be able to unless demolition is achieved which the ROC does not do to confirm poor workmanship.

Thereafter, Investigator Otero 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 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Otero testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive and Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator Otero explained that the remaining item of Complaint concerns the enlarging of a niche in the shower. Investigator Otero testified that because Respondent’s subcontractor performed the expansion work during the course of the construction of the shower, and therefore, Respondent’s work on the shower had not been completed, Respondent was responsible for his subcontractor’s work. Investigator Otero testified that there was no change order for the change to the shower niche.

Complainant testified that while the shower was under construction, he and his wife decided that they wanted a larger niche and requested that Respondent’s subcontractor enlarge it. Complainant testified that he paid an additional $500.00 to Respondent’s subcontractor for this change, at the direction of Respondent.

Paul Sweeney, Respondent’s owner, testified that when the original niche was installed, it was installed with a gasket and was completely rubberized in order to avoid leaking. When Mr. Sweeney subsequently arrived at the jobsite, the original niche had been removed. Mr. Sweeney testified that he advised Complainant that he would not warranty the larger niche and that Complainant had made the request directly to the tile subcontractor and also paid the subcontractor directly. Mr. Sweeney asserted that if the original niche had not been removed and enlarged, it would not have leaked. Mr. Sweeney contended that Respondent is not responsible for the resultant leaking, because the change was made without his knowledge and was a separate/side contract directly between Complainant and the tile subcontractor. Mr. Sweeney testified that the enlarging of the niche was outside of Respondent’s contracted scope of work. Mr. Sweeney testified that all change orders were in writing and there is no change order for this.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 10, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 332914 was first issued on April 6, 2021, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

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.”

In this case, the evidence established that portions of Respondent’s work were not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Respondent performed the vast majority of the corrective work to the Registrar’s standards, with the exception of the one remaining item of Complaint concerning incomplete caulking in the master shower. Investigator Otero verified this item and ordered Respondent to correct by appropriate means. Respondent began the ordered repair, however, according to Investigator Otero’s Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes and testimony, when Respondent began its repair, it was discovered that there was water infiltration behind the shower tiles from potential areas where caulking was needed to aide in waterproofing. Respondent removed tiles in an attempt to mitigate the damage from the water infiltration. Respondent attempted to install new tiles without chipping the edges and in the process, additional existing tiles were damaged, resulting in the scope of the repair becoming larger than expected. Respondent was unwilling to perform the necessary repairs and instead, “the shower was put back together with chipped, substandard completion.” Respondent undertook the repair work and refused to complete such work in an appropriate manner as ordered in the Written Directive. Consequently, Respondent’s attempted corrective work was not completed in a professional and workmanlike manner, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

Although the vast majority of corrective work was appropriately accomplished, the evidence established that Respondent did not fully complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. The evidence further established that valid justification did not exist for such failure. Respondent’s assertion that Complainant contracted separately for the larger niche is not persuasive, as Respondent’s subcontractor performed the work during the construction of the shower. Moreover, Respondent undertook the repair of the issue and then failed to appropriately complete the necessary repair work 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 332914 for a period of two (2) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $200.00 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, January 15, 2025.

/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]

Andrew Beaufeaux

[email redacted]

Hacienda Builders, LLC

[email redacted]

Daniel Otero

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff