ALJDEC

99F-2707-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-12-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 2, 1999 and November 30, 1999 APPEARANCES: Pat Amari on his own behalf; Paul Peterson for the Respondent on September 2, 1999. Respondent did not appear on November 30, 1999 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Lewis D. Kowal _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT Pat H. Amari (“Complainant”) filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors against Southwest Stone Installers, Inc.(“Respondent”) alleging fraud in the application of Respondent’s Class L-05 license. 2. Complainant and Michael Peterson, the father of the qualifying party of Respondent, had previously been involved in business as owners of a licensed contractor, Qualified Marble and Granite, Inc. (“Quality Marble”). At some point in time, the business relationship between Complainant and Michael Peterson deteriorated. Subsequently, Respondent obtained a L-05 license from the Registrar of Contractors. It is the representations made in Respondent’s application to the Registrar of Contractors (“Application”) for an L-05 license by the qualifying party, Paul Peterson, concerning his background and experience that is at issue in the instant proceeding. 3. Through the testimony of Complainant and the documentary evidence presented, it was established that the dates of employment and employment activities of Paul Peterson with Quality Marble were not as represented in the Application. 4. The Application shows Paul Peterson working for Quality Marble from May 1994 through June 1998. During the hearing, Paul Peterson could not remember details as to dates of employment and could not account for discrepancies between records from Quality Marble showing payment to him in August and September, 1997. Such payments were made concerning Paul Peterson’s relocation from Minnesota to Arizona so he could commence employment with Quality Marble. 5. Paul Peterson credibly testified that he began employment with Quality Marble in 1996 or 1997. Both of those dates are subsequent to the date of May 1994 which is what was stated in the Application as the date he began working with Quality Marble. 6. A letter ( Exhibit 1), written by Jonathan Tangness, a former employee of Quality Marble, contained representations that Mr. Tangness has been a stone setter for five years working with and under Paul Peterson’s supervision. However, Mr. Tangness testified that on the jobs he worked on for Quality Marble, Paul Peterson was not on the jobs nor did Paul Peterson supervise those jobs. 7. Albert Ray Jolin, Jr. testified that he began working at Quality Marble in 1995 and that his supervisor was Mr. Tangness. Mr. Jolin met Paul Peterson in 1997 at the end of the Green Acres job and worked with him in 1998 on the Buddhist Temple job in 1998. Mr. Jolin also testified that Paul Peterson did not perform any duties on the Buddhist Temple job and was removed from the jobsite by security. 8. James Miller, an employee of Quality marble from June 1997 through mid 1998, testified that he did not recall seeing Paul Peterson on a job until the Buddhist Temple job in 1998. During that time, he worked on 4 to 5 jobs with Mr. Amari and traveled with Mr. Tangness. 9. The testimony of Messrs. Tangness, Jolin, and Miller, as set forth above, is determined to be credible. 10. Complainant credibly testified that Paul Peterson’s first payroll check with Quality Marble was September 11, 1997. Although Mr. Peterson contends that the September 11, 1997 payroll check was not his first Quality Marble payroll check, he did not produce any records to show documents or prior payroll checks showing that he worked for Quality Marble prior to that date. The weight of the credible evidence presented establishes that Mr. Peterson moved from Minnesota to Arizona to begin working at Quality Marble. 11. Respondent did not present any credible evidence to refute or rebut the above-mentioned evidence presented by Complainant. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The evidence of record does not establish that Complainant is a person substantially injured within the meaning of A.R.S. §32-1154(A (7)) and thus, it is determined that Respondent has not violated that statute. The evidence of record establishes that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(6). Additionally, the evidence of record supports a determination that, in this case, disciplinary action is appropriate and warranted pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(20). RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the above, it is recommended that Respondent’s Class L-05 license be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. Done this day, December 16, 1999

______________________________________ Lewis D. Kowal Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of December, 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