ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-09701-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-31
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Danelle Osborn,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Rio Colorado Trim & Cabinets, L.L.C.,
License No. ROC 347860,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-09701-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 7, 2025
APPEARANCES: Danelle Osborn appeared on her own behalf. Alan Ruiz, Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Ruben Perez appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet); Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 10.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Rio Colorado Trim & Cabinets LLC (Respondent), is the holder of License No. 347860, CR-60 Finish Carpentry, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) in September 2023.
On or about August 22, 2024, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) from Danelle Osborn (Complainant) against Respondent alleging poor workmanship on the project.
The project was fabrication and installation of new cabinets; the contract was executed on December 8, 2023. The work started on April 24, 2024 and the last date of work was June 3, 2024. The price of the contract was $14,250.00 (plus $956.46 tax). Complainant had paid a 50% deposit and a 25% progress payment, in total $11,404.85.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Ruben Perez, Sr. On September 16, 2024, Investigator Perez conducted a Jobsite Inspection.
On September 16, 2024, Investigator Perez issued a Directive requiring that Respondent perform corrective work and so notify the Investigator no later than October 3, 2024. The Directive states the following:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 21: Contractor agreed to remove and remake all the cabinets May-23, removed them and made no steps to rebuild.
Investigator’s Observation: Both parties reported kitchen was installed and later removed by respondent to repair however, cabinets were not reinstalled. Kitchen was observed without new cabinets. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item 1: Door material is not as stated in the contract. Contract States door of solid walnut and I recieved vaneered doors.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 2: Vaneer was fitted poorly, chipped, and sanded through in several locations.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 3: Cabinets were not square.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 4: Visible gaps between cabinet components throughout. Contractor proposed solution of using silicone to close the gaps.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 5: Wood chipped & cracked in numerous locations.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 6: Nails have blown through the wood surface.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 7: Cabinet surfaces not flush with cabinet frame.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 8: Adjustable shelf support holes arrived unfinished, and the wood has been shredded.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 9: Drawer runners unfinished and unsealed
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 10: Cabinet frames cracked in various locations.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 11: Cabinet frames significantly warped
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 12: Darks knots and seams are filled with light wood filler- poor match.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 13: Visible gaps between interior drawer sides and bottoms throughout
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 14: Visible gaps between exterior drawer sides and bottom throughout.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 15: Drawer panels cut incorrectly causing warping in the wood bottom.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 16: The exterior exposed sides of the drawers are not sealed.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 17: Drawers chipping and shredding in numerous locations.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 18: Drawers: several locations have blistering.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 19: Drawers: there are hollows and gaps in the plywood.
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 20: Drawers warped
Investigator’s Observation: This item was not observed at inspection as cabinets were not on-site.
Governing Rule: NA
Complaint Item 22: Contractor offered partial refund of $4,914.09 (plus a $2689.14 credit) a moth from now.
Investigator’s Observation: This item is not a workmanship issue.
Respondent did not perform the corrective work by the Directive deadline. Investigator Perez subsequently forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department.
On October 30, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent. However, based on a clerical error with the October 20, 2024 Citation, on November 27, 2024, the Registrar issued a correction, which noted the cited violations as follows:
Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A)
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.
Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158
Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.
Charge: 3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)
Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.
Respondent had filed an Answer to the Citation on November 11, 2024. In its Answer, Respondent indicated that he wanted the situation to be over as soon as possible and wondered whether Complainant could pursue his bond for the refund amount that he had offered to her.
The Registrar subsequently referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On November 27, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the matter to convene on January 7, 2025 at 9:00 a.m., via Google Meet.
On November 29, 2024, the Office of Administrative Hearings also issued an ORDER advising the parties about the January 7, 2025 virtual hearing and specifying how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
At hearing, Investigator Perez testified consistent with his findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes and the Directive. At the October 11, 2024 compliance inspection, Investigator Perez was able to determine that the job was incomplete as there were no new, repaired, kitchen cabinets installed in Complainant’s kitchen.
At hearing, Complainant reviewed all of the specific issues she had with the cabinets that Respondent built and installed but then removed them to make repairs of Complainant’s issues therewith. Complainant’s photographs demonstrated the fabrication issues she had discovered for which she determined the custom built cabinets from Respondent were not as contracted and were unacceptable with the poor workmanship issues. Complainant stated that Respondent should not have used such poor quality and/or bad wood to build the custom cabinets, and that Respondent did not provide cabinets that met either his guarantee, the stated specifications in the contract, or her expectations based on his guarantees.
At hearing, Respondent stated that 1⁄4 inch plywood on top of pressed slabs was considered to be “solid” wood but that sometimes there are issues with a sheet of such wood which issues he cannot control. Respondent stated that some of the fabrication issues that Complainant was raising would not be visible once the cabinets were installed and that some were easily repaired with putty at the joints. Respondent indicated that some of Complainant’s alleged “damage” issues were the result of having to take these new cabinets off and then trying to reinstall them. Respondent noted that during the installation, they had installed some and then had to remove them to re-install while addressing, for example, a gap, and leveling or alignment of the cabinets. Respondent indicated that the cabinets are built in Mexico by grown men that do not need babysitting as to their work and that imperfections like splinters are fixed in the field when cabinets are being installed.
The Registrar cited A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), regarding A.R.S. § 32-1158, which provides requirements for written contracts that a licensee uses. Complainant provided a copy of the Respondent’s form that was used and executed by the parties for this project. Respondent’s form does not contain all the provisions required by statute.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s license history and status with the Registrar. Respondent’s license record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 347860 is currently active. The license record indicate there is one open cases, which is the instant 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 evidence of record established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards as had been cited in the Registrar’s Citation. Investigator Perez noted that the new cabinets which Respondent had built had been “removed by respondent to repair however, cabinets were not reinstalled. Kitchen was observed without new cabinets.” Investigator Perez directed Respondent “to correct by appropriate means.”
The hearing record demonstrates that, since June of 2024, Respondent did not return to the project to install any repaired cabinets. The hearing record demonstrates that Respondent did not install any repaired cabinets by the Directive deadline. The hearing record demonstrates that Respondent has not installed any repaired new cabinets since the Directive deadline.
Therefore, Complainant established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had not performed the contracted work project in a professional manner and workmanlike manner and, further, that Respondent had not corrected the work as had been directed. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely R4-9-108(A), and in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) as were cited by the Registrar.
The evidence of record further established that Respondent’s written contract form does not comply with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, as were cited by the Registrar.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 312965.
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 31, 2025.
/s/ Kay Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Ruben Perez Sr.
[email redacted]
Rio Colorado Trim & Cabinets, L.L.C.
PO Box 2853
Somerton, AZ 85350
[email redacted]
Danelle Osborn
4275 S Avenue 46 E
Roll, AZ 85347
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff