ALJDEC

98F-C978204-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 1998-05-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|SIGRID E. RAQUEL, |§| | | |§|CASE NO.: 97-8/204 | |Complainant, |§| | | |§|DOCKET NO.: 98F-C978204-BFS | |-v- |§| | | |§| | |CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS COMPANY,|§| | |License No.4702, Class M-2C, |§|RECOMMENDED | | |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |and |§| | | |§| | |ADOBE HOMES LLC, License No. |§| | |6996, Class D-8, |§| | | |§| | |Respondents, |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: May 8, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. Champion Home Builders appeared through its attorney, John Schneider. Adobe Homes LLC appeared through its attorney, Joy Little. 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 Orders are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Champion Home Builders is the holder of a Class M-2C License issued by the Department of Building and Fire Safety.

2. Respondent Adobe Home LLC is the holder of a Class D-8 License issued by the Department of Building and Fire Safety.

3. The Complainant purchased a manufactured residence sold by Adobe Homes LLC and manufactured by Champion Home Builders.

4. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the workmanship on her residence and filed a formal complaint, against both named Respondents, with the Department of Building and Fire Safety.

5. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned agency inspector conducted an on-site inspection and verified portions of the complaint against both Respondents.

6. The verified complaint directed Respondent Adobe Homes LLC to correct drywall cracking and texture voids in the interior of the residence.

7. Prior to the hearing, Respondent Adobe Homes LLC asserted that the items set forth in the verified complaint had been corrected and that the Complainant had signed off for the completion of the directed work and the said Respondent requested that the matter be dismissed.

8. The Complainant strongly opposed the assertions of Respondent Adobe Homes LLC asserting that the said Respondent had not properly performed the corrective action and that the drywall cracking had reappeared within two days of the Respondent’s corrective work. The Respondent’s request was denied and the matter was set for hearing.

9. At the conclusion of Complainant’s case, as presented at hearing, Respondent Adobe Homes LLC moved to Dismiss the charges against it.

10. At the hearing the Complainant failed to express any opposition to the Motion and the credible evidence of record failed to adequately establish any of the Complainant’s charges against Respondent Adobe Homes LLC. Accordingly, Respondent Adobe Homes’s Motion to Dismiss was granted and it is recommended that the charge against Adobe Homes LLC be dismissed.

11. The assigned agency inspector verified two items of the complaint against Respondent Champion Home Builders.

12. The assigned agency inspector found that Complainant’s ceiling sags between trusses and that the ceiling sags in the living room, dining room, and second bedroom.

13. There was no dispute that no work had been performed on the ceiling. The Respondent asserted that (1) it could find nothing wrong with the ceiling to correct and that (2) the Complainant was denying access to her residence unless the Respondent (Champion Home Builders) fixed her roof.

14. The Department of Building and Fire Safety does not specify specific methods of repair nor does it allow homeowners to specify specific methods of repair. Instead the assigned agency Inspector, if appropriate, verifies portions of the Complaint and the Respondent is expected to perform appropriate repairs to properly correct the verified items.

15. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the ceiling does visibly sag as verified by the assigned agency inspector.

16. The Respondent, Champion Home Builders, shall properly correct the ceiling as verified by the assigned inspector.

17. The Complainant is admonished that any unreasonable denial of access to Champion Home Builders may result in the dismissal of the Complainant’s charges and the closing of the instant case.

18. The Complainant’s assertions regarding her roof were not verified by the assigned inspector and the only item that requires correction by Respondent Champion Home Builders is the sagging of the ceiling.

19. It is found that the Respondent is responsible for correcting the ceiling to within applicable standards utilizing any workmanlike method that it deems is appropriate to properly correct the verified item.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. A.R.S. §41-2186.20 subjects a licensee’s license to sanctions if the licensee fails to manufacture or install, in a workmanlike manner, all subassemblies, units … which are suitable for their intended purpose.

2. The ceiling of the Complainant’s residence was verified as sagging, the assigned agency inspector’s verification was adequately supported by credible evidence of record. The credible evidence of record supported findings that Respondent Champion Home Builders failed to manufacture the Complainant’s home in a workmanlike manner and that the said Respondent is therefore in violation of A.R.S. §41-2186.20.

RECOMMENDED ORDERs

In view of the foregoing, it is Recommended that the case against Adobe Homes LLC, together with the complaint upon which it is based, be dismissed. It is further recommended that the Department of Building and Fire Safety temporarily suspend the License of Respondent Champion Home Builders (License No. 4702, Class M-2C) for a period of seven days commencing on August 1, 1998. It is further recommended at if Respondent Champion Home Builders properly corrects the sags in the Complainant’s ceiling prior to the date of suspension then the Order of Temporary Suspension shall be vacated and this case dismissed. It is further recommended that if the Complainant unreasonably denies access to her residence for the completion of the directed corrective work to her ceiling that the Order of Temporary Suspension shall be vacated and this case dismissed. Proof that the ceiling has been properly corrected, or that access has been denied, shall be in the form of a written statement by Respondent Champion Home Builders. Respondent shall mail a copy of the statement to the Complainant on the same date, or before. The Complainant shall have ten days from the date of mailing of the statement to respond. If no response is received by the Department of Building and Fire Safety with the time specified, then the case shall be dismissed. If the Complainant files a response denying that the ceiling has been corrected, then the Order of Suspension shall be held in abeyance pending results of a second verification inspection and further Order from the Department of Building and Fire Safety.

Dated this 18th day of May, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of May, 1998 to:

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

Transmitted by:

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