ALJDEC

99F-M1285-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-02-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 12, 2000

APPEARANCES: Curt Stradling appeared on behalf of Complainants; no one appeared on behalf of Respondent J S P Construction.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Eric A. Bryant _____________________________________________________________________

Complainants Curt and Sheryl Stradling bring this action regarding Respondent’s failure to correct sub-standard work performed while building their home. As noted above, neither Respondent’s owner and Qualifying Party Jeffrey Shearon nor anyone else on behalf of Respondent appeared at the hearing; therefore, Complainant’s evidence is uncontested. Having considered Complainant’s evidence and testimony presented at the hearing and, based upon the entire record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order of revocation. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent is a general contractor who was hired to build a new custom house for Complainants. Although the house was substantially completed in February 1999, many items remained for correction and repair. Respondent very slowly worked on those items. 2. In April 1999, Complainants filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors (ROC) and listed 25 items for correction, the most serious of which was a leaking roof. ROC Inspector Van Bagley inspected the house in July 1999 and issued a Corrective Work Order (CWO) listing 20 items for repair and correction. Some of the original items, including the leaking roof, had been corrected by Respondent and some by Complainants. 3. Respondent had until August 6, 1999, to comply with the CWO, but only performed a few repairs. Complainant Curt Stradling, who is a commercial construction project manager, characterized Respondent’s work as “hit and miss” and slow. Respondent showed up at Complainants’ house infrequently and without notice. Also, Respondent had to make several attempts to fix some of the items. 4. On January 11, 2000, Inspector Bagley made a pre-hearing inspection of the house and found that Respondent had still not corrected CWO items 4 (stemwall repairs), 6 (spots on concrete), 13 (interior and exterior paint touch-up), 22 (master bath medicine cabinets), and 27 (heaving section of driveway). This is more than seven months after the complaint was filed and five months after the CWO was issued. 5. Complainant testified that Respondent has done almost all of the repair work by himself and shows up infrequently to do the work. Complainant has repaired many items himself because he got tired of waiting for Respondent and doesn’t think Respondent’s work product is adequate. Complainant feels that he is at the bottom of Respondent’s priorities. 6. Respondent has had minimal response to this complaint. He made no response to the original complaint. In response to the Complaint and Citation, Respondent stated that all but two corrections were completed, which clearly is not the case. As noted above, Respondent did not appear at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Complainant bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent has violated the statutes cited in the Citation and Complaint. Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 437, 930 P.2d 508, 514 (Ct. App. 1996). Complainant has met her burden. 2. Respondent has violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7), (23), and (3), namely Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108. 3. A review of current ROC records shows that Respondent’s license is currently suspended for failure to renew. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32- 1154(C), that action does not deprive the ROC or this tribunal of jurisdiction and does not render the Registrar powerless to revoke the license. 4. Respondent has performed sub-standard work that has substantially harmed Complainant and has failed to comply with the CWO. Respondent has been woefully slow in his attempts to comply with the CWO. Furthermore, this tribunal is concerned that Respondent chose not to appear and participate at the hearing. Such disregard for duties as a licensee and obligations to customers is egregious. Under the circumstances of this case, this ALJ concludes that the appropriate penalty is revocation. RECOMMENDED ORDER IT IS RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s Class B license 108561 be revoked.

Done this 2nd day of February 2000.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Eric A. Bryant Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this ___ day of February 2000, to:

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

By ___________________________ -----------------------

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