ALJDEC

99F-1985-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-05-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 24, 1999 APPEARANCES: Mike Collum, Qualifying Party, on behalf of the Complainant. No one appeared on behalf of the Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Allen Reed _____________________________________________________________________ Findings of Fact The parties entered a written contract in August, 1997, whereby the Complainant would install a tile roof on a home being built in Scottsdale, by the Respondent. The price term was $20,000.00. In September, 1997, the Respondent approved an additional cost of $1,225.00 for a certain metal flashing. Most of this flashing was installed on the home when the Respondent changed its mind and by verbal change order decided on another flashing at an additional cost of $1,600.00. This latter flashing was installed by the Complainant. Additionally the Complainant added $625.00 to the contract price to repair damage to some of the tiles by other contractors. This brings the total asserted by the Complainant, as due on the contract, to $23,450.00. An initial payment of $14,000.00 was made by the Respondent to the Complainant, in September, 1997. The Complainant completed the job on February 28, 1998. Full payment was to be within 30 days of completion. The Respondent paid $4,725.00 on September 9, 1998 and $1,000.00 on September 29, 1998, bringing the total payments by the Respondent to $19,725.00. This leaves a difference of $3,725.00 between the amount paid by the Respondent and the total amount claimed by the Complainant as owed on the contract. The Complainant and Respondent were unable to reach an agreement on the matter and the Complainant filed its complaint on January 7, 1999. Conclusions of Law The allegations in the Citation and Complaint concern A.R.S. §32- 1154(A)(7), wrongful or fraudulent acts resulting in substantial injury, and (A)(11), failure to pay when able, for material or services. The absence of the Respondent was unexplained and no good cause for said absence is apparent. The evidence presented by the Complainant was not controverted or otherwise challenged. The evidence is deemed credible. Absent the presentation of any evidence or argument to the contrary, the facts show the Respondent owes the funds asserted by the Complainant and that there is no justifiable reason for nonpayment by the Respondent. The violations which are alleged are proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Recommended Order In view of the foregoing it is recommended commencing on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter that the Class B license of the Respondent shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives written proof that the Respondent has paid or tendered payment in the amount of $3,725.00, to the Complainant; It is further recommended that if the Respondent pays or tenders payment to the Complainant as required by the Order entered in this matter, then the aforementioned . . . . . . . . . . . . suspension shall not take place and the Citation and Complaint upon which it is based shall be closed. Done this day, May 25, 1999.

______________________________________ ALLEN REED Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of May, 1999, to:

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

By _______________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826