ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2024A-05538-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-02-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Gregg William Unwin,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Beemer Bits, LLC
DBA: Your Tucson Painter
License No. ROC 287739,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-05538-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 4, 2025 at 1:00pm
APPEARANCES: Renee Starnes on behalf of Complainant; James Strang on behalf of Respondent; Miles Crosby on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) and David Cooke, a Registrar Observer.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”), Registrar Supplemental Packet A, Registrar Supplemental Packet – Compliance Photos; Complainant Exhibits 2-3.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Beemer Bits LLC, DBA Your Tucson Painter (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 287739 issued by the Registrar.
On or about October 30, 2023, Gregg William Unwin and spouse Renee Starnes (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a residential paint job project located in Tucson, Arizona. The contract did not provide an estimated date of completion or an advisement that Complainant had the right to file a complaint with the Registrar. Respondent began work on the project on October 1, 2023, and work stopped on or about April 1, 2024.
On or about May 27, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
On May 30, 2024, Investigator Springer sent a warning letter to Respondent regarding the contract not containing the minimum elements of a contract. The exterior proposal was used as the contract for the exterior painting work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mike Springer. On July 18, 2024, a jobsite inspection was scheduled where both parties appeared. After the jobsite inspection, on July 22, 2024, Investigator Springer issued a Written Directive 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 September 11, 2024.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 – Can see original color through paint,
Investigator’s Observation: There are several areas where the paint is discolored or not covering. Numerous areas around the exterior of the home.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 2 – Overspray on posts and windows, parts of house not painted,
Investigator’s Observation: Overspray and poor coverage on posts and conduit – North side.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 3 – Rust not removed from rails before painting, can see it again, front door not sealed,
Investigator’s Observation: Rusted areas have had primer applied and have not been repainted.
. . . .
Compliant Item: 4 – Window caulk not repaired.
Investigator’s Observation: Exterior of windows are poorly caulked.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 6 – Patio rails have noticeable grit on the rail.
Investigator’s Observation: Patio rails are rough, overspray feel.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 8 – Visible roller and brush marks due to multiple paints,
Investigator’s Observation: Roller marks are visible in numerous areas inside the home.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 9 – Paint on a skylight which needs to be removed to clean, paint on marble doorstep,
Investigator’s Observation: Paint and tape left on skylight.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 10 – Wall paint on door frames, on new kitchen cabinets, outlet covers,
Investigator’s Observation: Doorframes, wall plates and kitchen countertop have paint on them.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 11 – Improperly painted baseboards, trim improperly painted.
Investigator’s Observation: Baseboard edging is poor, lines are not clean and straight.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 12 – streaks and lines in the ceiling.
Investigator’s Observation: Areas on ceiling are missing paint, poor coverage.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 13 – stucco cracks not repaired and used visibly different grade stucco.
Investigator’s Observation: Numerous stucco cracks are visible throughout the exterior of the home. Some of these areas have paint flaking. Crack repair on roof parapets is poorly done. There is staining from a water leak on the North side soffit. I cannot verify this area as poor work of the Respondent or where water leak came from.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 14 – Rotted door frame not replaced, just putty and paint.
Investigator’s Observation: Door frame was repaired but not painted.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 15 – Parapets not sealed correctly.
Investigator’s Observation: Stucco crack repair on roof parapets is poorly done.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 16 – Caulking not repaired or replaced on bottom of house.
Investigator’s Observation: Parties agreed there was a verbal agreement to remove the expansion joint fiber at the front of the garage and then caulk or seal it. This was not done.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 17 – Windows and interior floor have tape residue requiring cleaning.
Investigator’s Observation: Residual tape from masking has been left on frames.
All errors in original.
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, a compliance jobsite inspection was scheduled for November 12, 2024, because some work was performed by Respondent prior to the Directive deadline. On November 12, 2024, both parties were present at the compliance inspection and these are Investigator Springer’s notes provided as follows:
Compliance Jobsite General Notes:
Compliance Findings:
Most items remain uncorrected. Home interior items removed from complaint per Complainant.
Complaint Item: 1 – Can see original color through paint,
Investigator’s Initial Observation: There are several areas where the paint is discolored or not covering. Numerous areas around the exterior of the home.
Compliance Observation: Several areas where white is showing through exterior paint color.
NOT CORRECTED
. . . .
Complaint Item: 2 – Overspray on posts and windows, parts of house not painted,
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Overspray and poor coverage on posts and conduit-North side.
Compliance Observation: Same condition remains.
NOT CORRECTED
. . . .
Complaint Item: 3 – Rust not removed from rails before painting, can see it again, front door not sealed,
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Rusted areas have had primer applied and have not been repainted.
Compliance Observation: [Blank]
NOT CORRECTED
. . . .
Complaint Item: 4 – Window caulk not repaired.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Exterior of windows are poorly caulked.
Compliance Observation: [Blank]
NOT CORRECTED
. . . .
Complaint Item: 6 – Patio rails have noticeable grit on the rail.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Patio rails are rough, overspray feel.
Compliance Observation: [Blank]
NOT CORRECTED
. . . .
Complaint Item: 13 – stucco cracks not repaired and used visibly different grade stucco.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Numerous stucco cracks are visible throughout the exterior of the home. Some of these areas have paint flaking. Crack repair on roof parapets is poorly done. There is staining from a water leak on the North side soffit. I cannot verify this area as poor work of the Respondent or where water leak came from.
Compliance Observation: [Blank]
NOT CORRECTED
. . . .
Complaint Item: 15 – Parapets not sealed correctly.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Stucco crack repair on roof parapets is poorly done.
Compliance Observation: No change
NOT CORRECTED
. . . .
Complaint Item: 16 – Caulking not repaired or replaced on bottom of house.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Parties agreed there was a verbal agreement to remove the expansion joint fiber at the front of the garage and then caulk or seal it. This was not done.
Compliance Observation: [Blank]
NOT CORRECTED
. . . .
Complaint Item: 17 – Windows and interior floor have tape residue requiring cleaning.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Residual tape from masking has been left on frames.
Compliance Observation: Tape has been removed and frames have a faded look to them now.
NOT CORRECTED
. . . .
NOTE: Please review the complaint items listed above. If any of the items have not been corrected this complaint will be forwarded to the Registrar’s legal department and a citation may be issued.
If all items are corrected after receipt of this letter, please notify the Registrar’s legal department by sending a notice of compliance signed by the complainant.
All errors in original.
No evidence was presented that Respondent performed any corrective work after the compliance inspection.
On November 15, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Hearing Evidence
Investigator Miles Crosby provided testimony on behalf of the Registrar because Investigator Springer retired and was no longer able to participate on behalf of the Registrar. Investigator Crosby reviewed the file and documents and provided testimony at the Tribunal. Investigator Crosby testified that Respondent was provided with a longer deadline period for compliance with the Written Directive, approximately seven weeks, more than normal because of scheduling issues.
Renee Starnes testified on behalf of Complainant. Mrs. Starnes testified that the exterior portion of this job was supposed to take two weeks. However, there were weather issues and other matters that delayed the project for a significant amount of time. Mrs. Starnes did not believe that two coats of paint were used for the entirety of the job and that the crew was extremely unprofessional. Mrs. Starnes further testified that some of the painter’s tape was on the exterior in some parts for about one year and created major issues with her Anderson window frames which would be a major expense to replace the affected windows.
James Strang testified on behalf of Respondent that he was unable to be at the jobsite consistently due to recovering from a traffic accident. Mr. Strang testified that there were items during the compliance inspection that he did not agree with Investigator Springer on but that “[i]t wasn’t done as well as I would have liked,” referring to the paint project.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 4, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 287739 was first issued on October 3, 2013, and is Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is no prior discipline on this license and this current matter is the only open complaint.
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 means “proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, Complainant provided evidence of how the worksite was left with rubbish and some of the work was performed in an unprofessional manner with old paint coming through stucco, rust on railings not covered, overspray and other items from the compliance inspection. As such, 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).
In addition, the evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include all of 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).
Lastly, Respondent had ample time prior to the Written Directive deadline and a few days after the compliance inspection to try and remedy the items listed in the compliance inspection notes. However, evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 No. ROC 287739 for a period of one day.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.
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.
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000Done this day, February 24, 2025.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Mike Springer
[email redacted]
Gregg William Unwin
6727 N Hole in the Wall Way
Tucson, AZ 85750
[email redacted]
Beemer Bits, LLC
4729 East Sunrise Dr. Ste. 256
Tucson, AZ 85718
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff