ALJDEC

99F-625-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-03-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 7, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf. The Defendant appeared on his own behalf. The Registrar of Contractors appeared through Assistant Attorney General, Marjorie Becklund. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on March 7, 2000. The Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf. The Defendant appeared on his own behalf. The Registrar of Contractors appeared through Assistant Attorney General, Marjorie Becklund. 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. There was no dispute that the Plaintiff is an owner-occupant of the residence at issue. 2. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Plaintiff fully paid the Defendant for his work and that there is no money owed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. 3. The Defendant’s Class B- License is on suspended status as a result of the Defendant’s failure to perform corrective action on the Plaintiff’s residence. Credible evidence established that the Defendant has filed bankruptcy, suffered a mental breakdown, and no longer performs construction work of any type. 4. There was no dispute that the Plaintiff is allowing the Defendant to rent a room from her. There was no credible evidence that this situation is anything other than an humanitarian attempt by the Plaintiff to help an individual who has obviously suffered severe set-backs. The Plaintiff’s efforts to help an individual who has caused financial injury to the Plaintiff should be commended. 5. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Plaintiff’s exterior stucco requires extensive repair or replacement. 6. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Plaintiff has received approximately $39,000.00 from her insurance company (USAA Causality Insurance Company) for repairs to her new residence. The Plaintiff applied approximately $30,000.00 for interior stucco repairs and $9,000.00 for exterior stucco repairs. The Plaintiff now seeks another $11,000.00 from the Contractors’ Recovery Fund for repairs to the exterior stucco and reimbursement for her insurance deductible in the sum of $500.00. 7. Applicable statute (A.R.S. §32-1136(E)) prevents the payment of funds to a claimant that has received $20,000.00 or more from other sources.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. A.R.S. §32-1132(A) provides, in part, as follows: “There is established the residential contractors’ recovery fund,…, from which any person injured by an act, representation, transaction or conduct of a residential contractor, which is in violation of this chapter or the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter, may be award in the county where the violation occurred an amount of not more than twenty thousand dollars for damages sustained by the act, representation, transaction or conduct. An award from the fund is limited to the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of the residential contractor’s violation but shall not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines…,” 2. A.R.S. §32-1136(E) provides, in part, as follows: “… If the injured person has recovered a portion of his loss from sources other the fund in an amount of twenty thousand dollars or less, the registrar, if the award is made pursuant to §32-1154, or the court shall deduct the amount recovered from other sources from the amount payable upon the claim and direct the difference to be paid from the fund.” 3. The credible evidence of record supported findings that the Plaintiff has already recovered, from other sources, approximately $39,000.00 for her damages and is not eligible for payment from the Contractors’ Recovery Fund pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1136(E). 4. The sum of $20,000.00 is not available for each item of deficient workmanship (i.e., interior stucco repairs as opposed to exterior stucco repairs) but rather is the maximum amount that may be available from the Contractors’ Recovery Fund for all of a claimant’s damages.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages from the Contractors’ Recovery Fund be denied and this matter be closed. Done this day, March 17, 2000.

______________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of March, 2000, to:

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

By _______________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488