ALJDEC
97F-P0264-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-02-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|WILLIAM T. & DE ANNA F. CROWDER, |(| | | |(|Case No.: P97-0264 | |Complainants, |(| | | |(|Docket No.: 97F-P0264-ROC | |vs. |(| | | |(| | |License No. 103524, Class B of |(| | |MEADOW VIEW BUILDERS, INC. |(|Recommended | |(CORP.), |(|Decision and Order | | |(| | |Respondent. |(| | | |(| | | |(| |
HEARING: February 12th, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. Appearances: The Complainants, William T. and De Anna F. Crowder, appeared in their own behalf. The Respondent, Meadow View Builders, Inc., appeared through Chris T. Brimhall, Vice-President, and Qualifying Party. Administrative Law Judge: Grant Winston.
This matter was brought on for administrative hearing on Thursday, February 12th, 1998. The Complainants, William T. and De Anna F. Crowder, appeared in their own behalf. The Respondent, Meadow View Builders, Inc., appeared through its Vice-President and Qualifying Party, Chris T. Brimhall. Testimony was given and other evidence admitted, and, based on the record taken as a whole, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The Respondent herein is, and at all times material hereto was, a licensed contractor in the State of Arizona, holding Class B License Number 103524.
2. The Complainants contracted with the Respondent on or about August 1st, 1995, for the Respondent to construct their home in Show Low, Arizona, for a consideration of $98,000.00, plus upgrades. Payment of the contract price has been made in full. The Complainants moved into their home on or about April 1st, 1996, and the Respondent performed its last work there on or about May 5th, 1996.
3. Pursuant to an 11-Month Warranty Service Request Form, the Complainants sought to have the Respondent make certain specified repairs and corrections in the construction of their home. These items were attached and became a part of the Complaint they filed against the Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors on or about June 18th, 1997.
4. Registrar of Contractors’ Inspector Mr. Buddy Brown was assigned to investigate the Complaint. He conducted a job-site inspection on July 10th, 1997. Complainant Mr. Crowder, and Mr. Brimhall of the Respondent were present. Mr. Brown issued a written Corrective Work Order on July 15th, 1997.
5. Mr. Brown, in the Corrective Work Order, ordered the Respondent to correct certain items of the construction within fifteen days. The items to be corrected were referenced corresponding to their enumeration in the Complainants’ Complaint.
6. During the fifteen-day period allotted to the Respondent, the Complainant made another complaint to the City of Show Low. The subject of this complaint were weak floors in the house. This was also among the subjects of complaint in the Complaint filed with the Registrar’s office. The City of Show Low’s Building Official, Mr. David Potts, wrote a letter to Mr. Brimhall, in which he informed Mr. Brimhall that the floor framing was not in accordance with approved plans, citing the specifics of those deviations. Mr. Potts requested that the Respondent perform corrective action as soon as possible. Respondent took corrective action and the City of Show Low’s Inspector, C. Harris, issued an inspection report dated August 5th, 1997, in which he wrote that “correction of items as requested by building official [Mr. Potts] has been satisfactorily completed.”
7. However, the Complainants remained dissatisfied with several aspects of the Respondent’s construction of their home. Also, although the City of Show Low approved the measures taken to remedy the floor framing from its standpoint, the floors apparently remained unsatisfactory to the Complainants, and continued to be one of the subjects of their Complaint. On or about September 17th, 1997, the Complainants requested an administrative hearing on their Complaint.
8. On October 10th, 1997, the instant Citation and Complaint was issued to both parties relative to the underlying Complaint of June 18th, 1997. Notice of this hearing was issued to both parties on December 4th, 1997. On or about January 2nd, 1998, the Complainants submitted to the Registrar’s office a list of additional items they deemed an addendum to their Complaint. However, the Respondent was never notified of these additional items, nor did these additional items ever actually become a part of the instant Complaint by Order and Notice of the Registrar.
9. Immediately prior to the hearing of this matter, the Registrar of Contractor’s Inspector who succeeded Mr. Brown in this case, Mr. Jeff Betts, conducted a pre-hearing inspection. His findings were that in numerous places in the house the drywall was separating from the ceiling, and perhaps at other spots. In fairness to Respondent, it must be noted that the Respondent did take corrective measures to reattach the drywall in some areas. There is insufficient evidence to find as fact whether the areas observed by Mr. Betts were the same or different areas than those. He noticed the floor inside the house was very soft and spongy. He went under the house, into the crawl space, and there he discovered that the floor trusses were not per specifications; that the purlin jacks were not in a condition to pass all applicable codes, and that the walls had been nailed into the plywood in center-to-center fashion, right down the middle of two trusses. Such a method is not in conformity to the ICBO Code, which requires all interior walls to be nailed within three inches of a truss. All of these items were items that were to have been corrected per Mr. Brown’s Corrective Work Order. All other items in Mr. Brown’s Corrective Work Order had been corrected by the time of Mr. Betts’s inspection.
10. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior license disciplinary record with the Registrar of Contractors.
Conclusions of Law
1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §32- 1156, and A.R.S. §41-1092.
2. The Respondent herein is charged with possible violations of A.R.S. §32-1154.A.7., 23., and 3., namely A.A.C. R4-9-108 (Poor Workmanship).
3. The preponderance of credible evidence of record proved that Respondent did violate A.R.S. §32.1154.A.23. and 3., namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108, as found in Finding of Fact #9, supra.
4. No consideration or conclusions are here made in regard to the additional items the Complainants filed with the Registrar on January 2nd 1998. Those items were not made a part of the Complaint and Respondent was never given notice of them pursuant to Notice and Order from the Registrar amending the Complaint and adding them thereto. (See, e.g.: Gabbert v. Lic. No. 89477, Class B of Home Tec Intl., P96- 0213). Therefore, the Respondent was never afforded notice or the opportunity to respond and defend against them.
Recommended Order
Wherefore, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent’s Class B License Number 103524 be suspended until such time as the items listed in Finding of Fact #9, which were a part of the original inspector’s Corrective Work Order, are corrected to the satisfaction of the agency inspector.
In the alternative, it is recommended that if, on or before the effective date of this order, the Respondent corrects the items listed in Finding of Fact #9 to the satisfaction of the agency inspector, that no suspension take place, and Citation
. . .
. . . and Complaint No. P97-0264, together with the Complaint on which it is based, be dismissed.
Dated this 24th day of February, 1998.
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
_________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge
Original mailed this ___ day of February, 1998, to:
Michael Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors Attn: Joyce Armijo 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007
Transmitted by:
-----------------------