ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-07606-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Thomas McBride,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Anchor Home Renovation LLC

License No. ROC 329763,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-07606-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 7, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Thomas McBride appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet. Jose M. Palacio appeared on behalf of Respondent Anchor Home Renovation LLC via Google Meet. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Joseph Chester appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Anchor Home Renovation LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 329763 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

In March, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to install pavers on his driveway and patio at his home in Sun City West, Arizona.

On or about July 6, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Joseph Chester. The jobsite inspection was performed on August 8, 2024.

Investigator Chester then issued a Written Directive on or about August 14, 2024, which provided in pertinent 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 Friday, September 6, 2024.

...

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 2: pavers not completed

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of inspection, pavers in the driveway had not been completed around the trash lid along with pavers under the back patio are lifting up where the old patio and new patio was formed, respondent to fix the paver as appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 3: cement stains on pavers not cleaned/corrected

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

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 1: gates not hung

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or verify complaint item constitutes poor work due to the complaint item being modified prior to the JSI, ARS §32-1155 (D)(2)

Governing Rule: N/A...

(All errors contained in the original).

On October 16, 2024, Investigator Chester completed a Compliance Jobsite Inspection in which he noted the following, in pertinent part:

Complaint Item: - pavers not completed

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the time of inspection, pavers in the driveway had not been completed around the trash lid along with pavers under the back patio are lifting up where the old patio and new patio was formed, respondent to fix the paver as appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the compliance inspection the pavers by the trash can has been completed but the pavers lifting on the back patio had not been started.

Governing Rule:

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: - cement stains on pavers not cleaned/corrected

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

Compliance Observation: The stained pavers had been changed out for new pavers.

Governing Rule:

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED...

On October 20, 2024, 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).

On or about November 12, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about November 26, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on January 7, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Chester testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Chester testified that a representative for Respondent failed to appear at both the initial jobsite inspection as well as the Compliance Jobsite Inspection.

Further, Investigator Chester had extended the date for compliance to September 13, 2024, however, he noted that the pavers lifting on the back patio had not been started at the time of his compliance inspection in October.

Complainant testified that the work was not fully completed and that Respondent would continuously delay the project and repairs. Further, Complainant testified that once the Directive was issued, there was no conversation as to when Respondent would be out to complete the work.

Mr. Palacio testified that he did whatever he was told to do, and that all work was completed, as he replaced 60 pavers in the back yard.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 22, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 329763 was first issued on July 17, 2020, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case, and one “Disciplined” case”.

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 work was not within workmanship standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the pavers in the driveway had not been completed around the trash lid, the pavers on the back patio were lifting up where the new patio was formed, and there were cement stains on the pavers.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to fully complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. While the cement stained pavers had been removed, the weight of credible evidence provided that the repair of paver lifting on the back patio had not been started at the time of Investigator Chester’s Compliance Inspection, which was over two months after the Directive was issued. 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 No. 329763 for a period of two days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 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 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 22, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Anchor Home Renovation LLC

[email redacted]

Thomas McBride

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff