ALJDEC

99F-2182-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-08-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 4, 1999 APPEARANCES: Complainants appeared on their own behalf and Respondent failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Mark A. Silver _____________________________________________________________________

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent performed certain aspects of construction on the home ultimately purchased by Complainant. Complainants allege numerous deficiencies in the work performed by Respondent and same are discussed in the findings below.

2. The uncontroverted evidence of record established that the following constitute substandard and unacceptable workmanship attributable to Respondent:

a. Wall studs and the bottom cord of trusses are telegraphing through the drywall in numerous areas of the home. In addition, the drywall tape joints on the ceiling are visible despite the fact that said ceiling has been textured with a “popcorn” effect. b. In specified areas of the home wherein the top of the walls meet the ceiling the junction line is extremely wavy. c. The lines on numerous inside and outside corners of the drywall are wavy. In addition, specified areas wherein the drywall meets the window sills are not indicative of a 90 degree angle. d. Numerous areas of the drywall adjacent to corners are concave in appearance, due to Respondent’s apparent failure to properly “float-out” the wall from the corner bead. e. Several corner areas wherein walls meet the ceiling reveal voids in the drywall. f. Numerous cracks and nail pops are present in various areas of the drywall throughout the home. g. Respondent’s texturing work was extremely sloppy, as manifested by excessive amounts of texture material on the windows and window frames throughout the home. In addition, texture material is all over the door jam for the pantry door. It is interesting to note that despite the fact that the texture on the pantry door jam was present at the time of painting, Respondent painted over the texture splatter on said door jam. h. Some areas of the drywall texturing appear to be done as orange peel texture, other areas appear to be “skip-trowel” finish, there are extremely large globs of texture in various areas of the home, and there are areas wherein the texture was merely allowed to run down the wall. In addition, prior texture repairs performed by Respondent fail to match the texture applied in said areas and were not painted. Thus, the texture applied to the drywall on the walls and ceiling is extremely inconsistent throughout the home. i. There are voids around numerous electrical plate covers. j. The roof is extremely wavy and said condition is visible during any time of the day. k. In specified areas of the home a distinct horizontal line is visible on the top portion of the walls in said areas. l. The joints on the wood trim work installed throughout the home reveal nails that are not properly set and puttied over, lack of a tight installation, and failure to caulk voids. m. Lines where two colors of paint on different walls meet are not straight in specified areas of the home. In addition, there are numerous runs in the paint application on walls, doors, and trim. In this regard, it was shown that any future remedial work on the drywall installation will be so extensive that a complete re-paint of the interior of the home will be necessary after completion of the necessary drywall repairs. n. Although Respondent failed to call for the required nailing inspection after installing the drywall, Complainants testified at the hearing that they have a certificate of occupancy and have been advised by the local building authority that since it was their error in issuing the certificate of occupancy that no further action would be needed regarding the nailing inspection which had not been performed.

3. A jobsite inspection by the appointed inspector for the Registrar of Contractors was held, pursuant to which that Agency sent Respondent a letter directing it to accomplish specified remedial work within a stated period of time. Notwithstanding the terms of said Agency directive, Respondent failed to comply with same.

4. The assigned Agency inspector appeared at the instant hearing, along with a new inspector for the Registrar of Contractors. Both inspectors testified that Respondent’s work on the drywall was “terrible.” This Tribunal finds that Respondent’s work on Complainants home was so poor that it raises serious doubts referable to Respondent’s competency to hold the highest form of residential contractor’s license.

5. Although the Registrar of Contractors typically allows a contractor a reasonable opportunity, after a hearing, to correct any determined deficiencies in his work, under all of the salient facts and circumstances presented herein Respondent should not be allowed to wreak any further havoc on the lives of Complainants.

6. It is important to note that not only did Respondent fail to appear for the instant hearing but that he also failed to appear at the original jobsite inspection and the pre-hearing jobsite inspection. By his failure to appear at the instant hearing, Respondent failed to present any matters in defense or mitigation. Moreover, his failure to appear at official Registrar of Contractors jobsite meetings and the instant hearing reveals a flagrant disregard for his responsibilities as a licensed contractor as well as a disregard for the rights and entitlements of Complainants.

7. As set forth in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors, Respondent was advised that in the event of a finding of a violation against Respondent, Respondent’s prior disciplinary record of final Registrar of Contractors’ orders may be considered in mitigation or aggravation. Accordingly, subsequent to conclusion of the instant hearing, notice was taken of official records of the Registrar of Contractors regarding any prior final disciplinary orders against Respondent and said notice revealed a prior disciplinary action that had been imposed against his license and said action included a suspension along with extensive probation. Therefore, Respondent’s prior record is properly deemed to be poor and thus, is viewed as a matter in aggravation for any disciplinary penalties to be imposed as a direct result of this case.

8. Notice is hereby taken of official Registrar of Contractors public records, which reveal that Respondent’s contracting license has been suspended since November 6, 1998 for failure to file an additional bond required by order of the Registrar. Such suspension does not preclude this tribunal from conducting these administrative proceedings nor from issuing separate disciplinary orders. Moreover, Respondent’s existing suspended license status must be considered when determining appropriate penalties in this case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The undisputed evidence of record established that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154A (23), (7), (2)and (3); namely Rule R 4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent’s Class B license shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter.

Done this day, August 9, 1999

______________________________________ Mark A. Silver Administrative Law Judge

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

Registrar of Contractors Mr. Michael P. Goldwater 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