ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-07696-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-03
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Steve Bittner,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Four Star Home Repairs LLC
License No. ROC 344550,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-07696-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 10, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Steve Bittner.
For Respondent: Josh Butner.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Investigator Brandon Smith.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 10.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Four Star Home Repairs LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 344550 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on April 20, 2023.
On or about March 28, 2024, Steve Bittner (Complainant) entered into an agreement, without a written contract, with Respondent for, among other things, to replace flooring.
On or about July 9, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Brandon Smith, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on July 16, 2024, scheduling the inspection for August 5, 2024.
Investigator Smith conducted the jobsite inspection on August 5, 2024, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Smith issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on August 26, 2024, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Ceramic tile in sunroom not level, crooked pattern, hollow tiles.
Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Inspection presented floor substrate unlevel, pattern in floor tile crooked, and at least 1/3 of the floor tiles are hollow.
Governing Rule:
Complaint Item: 3 - Floor not leveled before LVP flooring installation throughout.
Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Floor substrate unleveled when LVP placed
Governing Rule:
Complaint Item: 5 - Significant gaps between flooring types.
Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Transitions have spaces greater than 1" in places with no trim or transition molding in place at time of inspection. Complainant advised the molding just came off
Governing Rule:
. . .
Complaint Item: 7 - Quarter round trim missing throughout house.
Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Observed missing Quarter Round in the Living room and around the pantry cabinet.
Governing Rule:
Complaint Item: 8 - Sloppy baseboard installation and caulk job, nails not set.
Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Through out house, baseboards installed with poor paint, nails not recessed and puttied,
Governing Rule:
Complaint Item: 10 - Closet doors not re-installed.
Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Closet doors not installed upon inspection
Governing Rule:
Complaint Item: 13 - 3 pallets and a bag of concrete not removed from front of house.
Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Pallets still stacked in driveway
Governing Rule:
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Smith of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on September 13, 2024.
On September 10, 2024, Investigator Smith granted an extension for compliance with the Written Directive to September 27, 2024.
On September 30, 2024, Investigator Smith issued a Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for October 3, 2024. On October 3, 2024, Investigator Smith conducted a Compliance Inspection, and Respondent was present. During the inspection, none of the Compliance Items were deemed corrected, but Compliance Items 10 and 13 were unverified.
On October 9, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on October 22, 2024, stating he disagreed with the findings and citation and that he had concerns about the process.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On October 30, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for December 3, 2024.
On or about November 29, 2024, Respondent requested that the hearing be continued so that he could hire counsel.
On or about December 2, 2024, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to February 10, 2025. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on February 10, 2025.
Investigator Smith testified in support of his findings and the Citation. He testified that there was no written contract, making it difficult to determine the scope of the agreement for this project. For Complaint Item 3, he specified that, to the best of his memory, there were two areas of the floor that needed to be leveled: the living room a transition into the bedroom.
John Bassous, a general contractor, testified for Complainant. He expressed his concerns about the work identified and explained what he believed should have happened instead.
Steve Bittner testified for Complainant. He testified that he did not have a discussion about leveling the floor before the project began. He generally testified in support of Investigator Smith’s findings.
Robert Mullis testified for Respondent. He testified that Mr. Bittner was going to purchase all of the materials. He testified that he spoke with Mr. Bittner about needing to level the floors, but Mr. Bittner decided the new floor should just go over the existing floor. He said that Mr. Bittner did not buy floor-leveling materials or quarter round. He testified that he injured his back and was, therefore, unable to complete the work himself; he hired another contractor to do it, and he believed Complainant was satisfied with that work. He testified that if he had been able to complete the work himself, he would have.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 27, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 344550 was active, and the license had no other complaints.
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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”
Contracts are vital to protect both parties to an agreement. They ensure that a service-providing contractor has a record of work agreed to and a documentary basis for payment; they also ensure that the service-receiving party consents to work being done and amount charged for the service.
Unless a contract contains a specific waiver or warranty disclaimer, a contractor accepts the surface upon which they work, including deficiencies that ultimately become workmanship problems. Prior to entering a contract, a contractor should inspect the surface for flaws or defects that would affect the work to be performed. If the surface is unacceptable, the contractor should call the defect to the owner’s attention so that the owner can choose to pay for corrective work or sign a wavier, agreeing that the contractor will not be responsible for problems caused by the underlying condition.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), specifically regarding Compliance Items 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158.
The preponderance of the evidence 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), specifically regarding Compliance Items 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for one day Respondent’s License No. 344550.
It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the Order Respondent shall provide an amended contract to the Registrar which establishes compliance with the requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. If Respondent fails to comply, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until it provides a compliant contract.
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, March 3, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Brandon Smith
[email redacted]
Four Star Home Repairs LLC
[email redacted]
Steve Bittner
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff