ALJDEC

99F-2497-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-09-07

STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on September 7, 1999 pursuant to advance notice duly sent to all parties. Complainant, Javier C. Navarro, appeared in his own behalf, and Co- Complainant, Registrar of Contractors, was represented by Assistant Attorney General, Montgomery Lee, Esq. Although the start of the scheduled hearing was delayed for over 20 minutes to afford added time in which to make an appearance, the Respondent failed to appear through any authorized employee or by any proper legal representative. 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. At the outset of the scheduled hearing, the Administrative Law Judge entertained the motion by Respondent’s former legal counsel, Jamie B. Holguin, Esq., previously filed very shortly before the hearing date, to withdraw as attorney of record in this administrative action. Based upon a finding that the contents of said motion provided adequate cause for the requested withdrawal from representation, the

Administrative Law Judge granted counsel’s motion, thereby permitting his withdrawal as attorney for Respondent in this case.

2. At all times material herein, Respondent was and is the holder of a residential Class C-39R license issued by the Registrar. No other contracting licenses were issued to or held by Respondent.

3. Complainants’ uncontroverted evidence revealed that Respondent agreed to and did perform work at Complainant’s residence primarily consisting of the removal and replacement of an existing air-conditioning unit with a new unit.

4. From the inception, the work performance by Respondent was unprofessional and deficient in numerous aspects, reflecting adversely upon its workmanship. Structural support beams beneath the roof were severed and never properly repaired. Ground wires were left cut and unsecured. The initial attempt to re-locate the air handler from a closet area into the attic space was unacceptable, and generated the issuance of a “red tag” from the local building authorities.

5. Portions of the original cooling system, although disconnected, were improperly allowed to remain on the residence, such as piping protruding through the roof. During the work, a significant hole was cut into and through the roof surface, subsequently becoming a source for water leaks during rainfall. Interior water damage to drywall surfaces was sustained as a result of such leaking condition.

6. The leaking condition was exacerbated by Respondent’s further roofing work on and around the roof shingles and the metal flashing. Additionally, numerous holes

were cut in the exterior frieze boards that were subsequently patched improperly with interior drywall compound materials that were unsuitable for exterior use. Moreover, the patched areas were never appropriately re- finished by Respondent.

7. The newly installed air-conditioning equipment was shown to be operating in an extremely noisy manner, and the entire system was never properly balanced by Respondent, resulting in an excessive extent of temperature unevenness with respect to the heating and cooling of different rooms within the home.

8. The credible evidence demonstrated that Respondent had directly performed electrical work, providing new 200 Amp. Service, as well as roofing work, framing work and drywall work, all of which did not fall within the permissible and limited scope of Respondent’s specialty license. Moreover, the performance of these aspects of the work was accomplished in a very poor manner, thereby serving as a further matter in aggravation hereunder. Additional aggravating circumstances were demonstrated by a showing that Respondent had been expressly admonished by Registrar’s representatives on prior occasions with respect to other projects to cease and desist from impermissibly continuing to bid and perform construction work that was beyond the proper scope of its contracting license.

9. Following two separate jobsite visits by the Registrar’s assigned Inspector, separate written directives were issued to Respondent seeking to prompt the undertaking and completing of corrective work on a significant quantity of deficiencies. Although a deadline date of 15 days was made applicable, only a relatively few items were timely rectified. It is found and determined that Respondent has not substantially complied with the terms of the written directives.

10. Even some of the enumerated items in the two directives that had been the subjects of belated remedial attempts were left with unsightly crude patches, indicating that little or no effort had been made to properly and professionally finish repaired areas. Other examples of Respondent’s non-compliance with issued directives include, but are not limited to, the inability or failure to successfully curtail roof leaks, the failure to appropriately clear and remove construction debris from the premises, the providing of an unacceptable replacement door for a closet containing the air handler, the failure to properly balance the air distribution from the newly installed equipment, and the widespread lack of finishing the visible surfaces of many repaired areas. Of perhaps special significance, Respondent failed to accomplish appropriate corrections to the framing of the dwelling after having severed several support beams below the roof.

11. Some of the designated items needing remedial attention were ultimately rectified prior to the date of the hearing. Many more such items remain improperly corrected, especially in those repaired areas that were never finished or re-painted by Respondent. It also appeared likely that Respondent’s installation of the new air handler in the closet where the original equipment was located, was contrary to applicable code requirements and incapable of successfully passing an inspection. In addition, the replacement door to the closet appeared to be inadequately vented.

12. The overall ongoing course of conduct on the part of Respondent is found to reflect a disregard of its duties as a licensed contractor in this State as well of the entitlements and comforts of its customer/homeowner. Respondent’s generally unresponsive inaction or ineffective remedial efforts following notice of deficiencies in its original work, which was credibly shown to have resulted in an inordinate quantity of workmanship defects, when considered in combination, must necessarily prompt the Registrar to seriously question whether this contractor deserves to be allowed to function as a licensee in the future.

13. Notice is taken of the Registrar’s license records which reveal that Respondent has compiled a highly unsatisfactory prior record as a licensed contractor in this State, having had an extremely large quantity of confirmed complaints filed against its license.

14. By the failure of Respondent to appear at and participate in the scheduled hearing of this matter, no evidence in defense or in mitigation of the charged violations was presented to the tribunal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The undisputed evidence of record sufficiently established that Respondent has violated the provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(7), (17), (23), and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108.

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.

Dated: September 16, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Robert. I. Worth Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted on _____________________

by: _____________________________ , to:

Mr. Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

ATTN: Joyce Armijo -----------------------

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