ALJDEC

98F-C978027-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 1997-12-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

| |§| | |DANIEL D. CHAVEZ, |§|DOCKET NO.: 98f-C978027-ROC | | |§| | |Complainant, |§| | | |§| | |-v- |§|RECOMMENDED | | |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |SCHULT HOMES CORPORATION, |§| | |License No.5719, Class M-9E, |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: December 16, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its qualifying party, Lionel Clark. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of a Class M-9E License issued by the Department of Building and Fire Safety.

2. The Complainant purchased a residence manufactured by the Respondent.

3. After taking possession of the residence, the Complainant noticed numerous alleged deficiencies in the residence and filed formal complaints, against the Respondent and the Seller of the residence, with the Arizona Department of Building and Fire Safety.

4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaints, an assigned agency inspector performed an on-site inspection and verified portions of the alleged deficiencies set forth in the complaints.

5. The parties were in sharp dispute as to whether the Respondent or the Seller should be responsible for repairing the carpet in the Complainant’s residence.

6. The assigned Agency Inspector then conducted a re-verification inspection and issued a second verified complaint directing the Respondent to correct the carpeting on the basis that the Respondent pulled up the carpet during its repair of the plywood flooring beneath the carpeting.

7. There was no dispute at the hearing that the Respondent did pull the carpeting up in order to correct the plywood flooring beneath the carpet.

8. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the carpeting in Complainant’s residence does not comply with applicable industry standards and requires proper repair, or replacement.

9. There was no credible evidence presented at hearing to establish that the Respondent damaged the carpeting when it was removed.

10. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent did not install the carpeting in Complainant’s residence and did not cause the carpeting to be reinstalled in the Complainant’s residence following its repair of the plywood floor beneath the carpeting.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence of record does not support any finding that the Respondent has violated any of the charged provisions of A.R.S. §41-2186.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Case No.97-8/027, together with the complaint upon which it is based, be dismissed.

Dated this 16th day of December, 1997.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of December, 1997 to:

N. Eric Borg, Director Building of Fire and Safety ATTN: Dawn Castle E. Virginia, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Transmitted by:

-----------------------