Administrative document
99F-H0199-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-11-03
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|ANGIE WILKS, |§|CASE NO.: H99-0199 | | |§| | |Complainant, |§|DOCKET NO.: 99F-H0199-ROC | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No. 096533, Class B- of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |Leo William Hurley d.b.a. |§| | |SILVERWOOD CONSTRUCTION (INDIV), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |
HEARING: October 25, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through his attorney, Thomas Price. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas
This matter came on for hearing on October 25, 1999. The Complainant appeared on his own behalf and the Respondent appeared through his attorney, Thomas Price. 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. Respondent is the holder of a Class B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.
2. The Respondent constructed a new concrete slab and foundation for a metal building that was to be erected on the Complainant’s farm property.
3. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct his work despite repeated requests that he do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.
4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainant’s residence.
5. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the concrete slab and foundation were too small for their intended purpose and that the metal building could not be erected on the concrete slab and foundation as constructed by the Respondent.
6. Credible evidence established that after the corrective work order was issued, the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein the parties agreed that the Respondent would tear out the concrete foundation and slab and that the Respondent would then compact the soil and then re-pour the concrete slab and foundation to engineering specifications.
7. There was no dispute that the Respondent had removed the concrete foundation and slab.
8. Credible evidence established that the parties then had a disagreement regarding the scope of work to be included in the replacement of the concrete foundation and slab and that the Complainant denied access of the Respondent to the farm property. The Complainant now seeks restitution for her expected costs in having the property compacted by an alternative contractor and for the return of all moneys paid to the Respondent.
9. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the parties’ settlement agreement was knowingly and voluntarily entered into and that the agreement was specifically entered into with the intent to resolve the Complainant’s complaint against the Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors.
10. The performance of any electrical, plumbing, or mechanical work is beyond the scope of the Respondent’s Class B- License and the Respondent is prohibited from performing construction work beyond the scope of his License.
11. Both parties are bound by the terms and conditions of their settlement agreement which has been partially completed. The Respondent shall return to the job-site and properly compact the soil and then construct the new concrete foundation and slab in accordance with all architectural and engineering plans and specifications.
12. The Respondent shall perform his construction work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the parties’ settlement agreement entered into on March 20, 1999.
13. The Complainant is admonished that she is also bound by the terms and conditions of the parties’ written settlement agreement, and that any unreasonable denial of access may be treated as the substantial equivalence of compliance in this matter.
14. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors. . . . . . .
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (7) (Wrongful Act) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class B- License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly accomplished the compaction of the soil and the construction of the concrete slab and foundation in accordance with the parties’ written settlement agreement.
It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the above described corrective action, on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License suspension shall not take place and Citation No. H99-0199 shall be closed.
Dated this 12th day of November, 1999.
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge
Original mailed this day of November, 1999 to:
Michael P. Goldwater, Director Attn: Joyce Armijo Registrar of Contractors 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007
Transmitted by:
-----------------------