ALJDEC

98F-T0125-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-04-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

| |§ | | |CONCRETE DONE WITH LOVE, INC., |§ |CASE NO.: t98-0125 | | |§ | | |Complainant, |§ |DOCKET NO.: 98f-t0125-roc | | |§ | | |-v- |§ | | | |§ | | |License No. 102221, Class B-01 of|§ |RECOMMENDED | |HAUGEBAK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY |§ |DECISION AND ORDER | |(CORP.), |§ | | | |§ | | |Respondent. |§ | | | |§§| | | |§ | | | |§ | |

HEARING: March 31, 1998. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through its attorney, James D’Antonio. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Denise Troy. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on March 31, 1998. The Complainant appeared through its attorney, James D’Antonio, and the Respondent appeared through its attorney, Denise Troy. 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 B-01 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a commercial matter where the parties entered into a written subcontract which provided that the Complainant was to perform designated concrete work on an extensive remodeling of a commercial building being performed by the Respondent. The Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant the sum of $20,280.00 for the agreed upon concrete work.

3. The parties demonstrated an ongoing inability to effectively communicate or properly schedule job-site work during the construction process.

4. Following a final dispute, the Respondent excluded the Complainant from the job-site and retained an alternative licensed concrete contractor to finish the project at a cost of $14,679.48.

5. The Complainant asserted that the Respondent’s actions were unjustified and that the Respondent failed to follow the parties’ written agreement for written notice of termination and alleged that the Respondent owed the Complainant the sum of $6,679.48, allegedly due and owing pursuant to the parties’ written agreement.

6. When the Respondent failed, and refused, to pay the claimed sum, the Complainant filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors and the matter was set for formal hearing.

7. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the parties’ dispute is a good faith contractual dispute which will necessarily involve an adjudication of money damages.

8. It is found that this matter should be resolved, if at all, in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar of Contractors is not empowered to adjudicate and award money damages. Until and unless the parties’ good faith dispute is resolved by a civil court of competent jurisdiction, no violation of the charged provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154(A) would be supportable.

. . .

. . .

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Citation No. T98- 0125, together with the complaint upon which it is based, be dismissed.

Dated this 7th day of April, 1998.

OFFICEOFADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of April, 1998 to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Attn: Joyce Armijo Registrar of Contractors 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

Transmitted by:

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