ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-08393-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-12-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

TJ Wilcoxson,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Adobe Contracting LLC,

License No. ROC 294942,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-08393-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 2, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant TJ Wilcoxson appeared via Google Meet on his own behalf. John Horacek appeared on behalf of Respondent Adobe Contracting LLC via Google Meet. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Steven Avila appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Adobe Contracting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 294942 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about October 21, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel his home in Gilbert, Arizona. There was no written contract.

On or about July 25, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the present complaint to Investigator Steven Avila.

The jobsite inspection was performed on August 29, 2024. Investigator Avila noted the following:

Due to the status of respondent’s license being revoked, no written directive is to be issued and the complaint is to be referred to the Registrar’s legal detartment.

Citations issued will be:

32-1154(A)(3) Workmanship

32-1154(A)(1) Abandonment

Any remaining financial disputes between the two parties must be held in a different venue and they do not fall within the Registrar’s Jurisdicions.

Complaint Item: 5 - Shower: was addressed back in May...still not done.

Probably needs to be demoed and redone.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the shower in question was missing granite sections and was sat at an incomplete item. A water test was performed to check drainage of the shower floor and after sitting for an extended period of time the show floor showed puddling remained. Workmanship standards state that if shower floors do no slope to the drain the respondent shall make the necessary repairs. Allegation of incomplete is verified. The Respondent's license is now revoked and he can do no corrective work. The complaint has now been referred to our legal department for citation.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 6 - Doggie Door: Spent 12 hours on this scope. Measured wrong and door cannot be secured because they cut it fit on the baseboard.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the doggy door was installed and the placement of the doggy door did not allow for proper function of the door. The locking cover of the doggy door is not shutting properly due to a lack of space between the door and baseboards. Allegation of incomplete is verified. The Respondent's license is now revoked and he can do no corrective work. The complaint has now been referred to our legal department for citation.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 7 - Drywall: (inspect entire house)

Investigator’s Observation: Homeowner was informed at the time of the inspection that the registrar does no inspect the entirety of the drywall repairs. The homeowner did bring forth multiple locations in which the drywall repairs made remain in an unfinished unpainted state. Allegation of incomplete drywall repairs has been verified. Allegation of incomplete is verified. The Respondent's license is now revoked and he can do no corrective work. The complaint has now been referred to our legal department for citation.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 8 - Baseboards: Not completed or painted

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were multiple locations of baseboard in which the mitered corners did not meet and were subsequently filled with large amounts of caulk. Workmanship standards state - All joints on molding, casing, etc., should fit and be securely attached, as well as properly filled and sanded. Allegations of improper fit and finish is verified. The Respondent's license is now revoked and he can do no corrective work. The complaint has now been referred to our legal department for citation.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 9 - Doors: We have 12 doors in the house and 11 don't shut properly and none of the sliders that were installed do not lock.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the homeowner brought forth a door in which the door hit the frame of door and did not function properly. Other doors could now close but did not latch appropriately. There were also doors which now close and latch after adjustments but light could be between the door and jamb. The light coming thru was in multiple locations due to large gaps between the door and the door frame and jamb. One door brought forth was trimmed and raw wood remained visible and unpainted. Neither of the two sliding glass doors inspected at the jobsite inspection latched shut. Allegation is verified. The Respondent's license is now revoked and he can do no corrective work. The complaint has now been referred to our legal department for citation.

Front door adjustment is not part of this line item and the door seal was added by the homeowner and appears to be affecting the closing of the door,

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 12 - Shower Handles: Were not installed properly and without stop tube kits.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection modifications had been made to the shower handles in question. These modifications appeared to be an attempt to make the escutcheon covers to fit properly due to improper clearances. This is not a standard installation seen throughout the plumbing industry. Allegation is verified. Garage threshold does not appear to be part of the scope of the respondent.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 13 - Cabinets: Incomplete – Handles, Closures, Paint, Drawers, etc.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were multiple locations in the cabinets in which improper installation and improper adjustments resulted in slider functions not working properly and misaligned doors and drawers. Workmanship standards state that the contractor should make all proper adjustments once within the first year of installation. There were also open voids in the cabinets where hardware was not installed in intended locations. Some areas of cabinetry had trim installed where fasteners could still be seen. Homeowner also brought forth multiple shelving/ drawers that had not been installed and were laying inside the cabinets. Allegation is verified. The Respondent's license is now revoked and he can do no corrective work. The complaint has now been referred to our legal department for citation.

The hallway Cabinet doors that are touching do not appear to be due to the workmanship of the respondent as the cabinets were purchased by the homeowners with the door installed.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 14 - Paint: Not complete

Investigator’s Observation: Multiple locations of drywall repair remained in an unfinished unpainted state. Allegation is verified. The Respondent's license is now revoked and he can do no corrective work. The complaint has now been referred to our legal department for citation.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 15 - Shower Floor: Pitched incorrectly, water doesn’t drain.

Investigator’s Observation: Shower base had puddling present and was not draining properly to drain. Allegation is verified. The Respondent's license is now revoked and he can do no corrective work. The complaint has now been referred to our legal department for citation.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship...

(All errors contained in the original).

On September 17, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).

On or about October 3, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about October 15, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 2, 2024, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Avila testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings from his inspection.

Investigator Avila testified that there was no Written Directive issued as Respondent could not perform the corrective work due to its license being suspended.

Complainant testified that the work started off like gangbusters, but soon thereafter, there were issues with communication, as he was requesting an itemized invoice to pay.

Complainant testified further that when he did receive an invoice, credits for payments were not in the invoice so he never knew exactly how much to pay.

In addition, Complainant testified that he received bids ranging from 18-20 thousand dollars to perform the corrections.

Finally, Complainant testified that during the Thanksgiving weekend he lost power in his office and learned that it was due to a circuit being overloaded that was not properly checked by Respondent.

Mr. Horacek testified that there was no written contract but that it was a time and materials contract. He testified that Respondent stopped work from November through March as Complainant was trying to get money from his insurance company, and that work stopped due to lack of payment.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 16, 2024. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 294942 was first issued on October 21, 2014, and reflected that the license was revoked as of June 14, 2024. There was one open case, namely the present 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, and Mr. Horacek admitted that work stopped for months at a time. Therefore, Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1). While the tribunal appreciates Mr. Horacek’s argument about lack of payment, it was not an excuse for failing to perform on the contract, as he could have other legal remedies available to collect on the agreement.

The preponderance of the evidence established, and Mr. Horacek did not dispute, 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 most items were poorly constructed.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 294942.

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, December 16, 2024.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Adobe Contracting LLC

[email redacted]

TJ Wilcoxson

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff