ALJDEC

99F-M1473-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-03-31

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 31, 2000 APPEARANCES: Gary Harris, Complainant, in his own behalf Art Thruston, General Manager, on behalf of the corporate Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Allen Reed _____________________________________________________________________ Findings of Fact 1. The Complainant and Respondent entered a contract for the construction of the Complainant’s home at Red Mountain Ranch, in Mesa, Arizona. 2. The cost of the home was $304,000.00. 3. Construction began in March of 1998, and was anticipated to take seven months. 4. The Complainant was not able to move into the home until May, 1999. 5. At the time of the move in, the parties were aware of numerous problems (approximately 250) which needed to be completed or corrected. 6. On June 9, 1999, the Complainant filed the complaint with the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). 7. Inspector James Walsh (Walsh) inspected the home on August 4, 1999 and issued a Corrective Work Order (CWO) on August 5, 1999. 8. The CWO required the Respondent to complete construction of the home, resolve the issue of the foot columns and A.C. screen wall, finish the CMU street number post and complete the interior and exterior touch up. 9. The Respondent has been in financial difficulties and has not timely made all the required corrections. At the time of the hearing, the Respondent was having someone doing the paint touch up at the Complainant’s home. 10. By stipulation of the parties, the items listed in Exhibit 12 remain to be completed. This list contains over 70 items which must be finished or corrected. The exhibit is part of this record and specific items do not need to be individually listed in this Recommended Order. 11. The most obvious remaining item which relates to workmanship is a shower drain in the master bath. The drain is not at the low point of the shower floor. This requires the Complainant to squeegee the water into the drain. Other items relating to workmanship include but are not limited to paint and caulking, column seams, a plaster window frame and baseboard trim. Conclusions of Law The allegations in the Citation and Complaint concern A.R.S. §32- 1154(A)(3)/A.A.C. R4-9-108 relating to workmanship, (A)(7), wrongful or fraudulent act resulting in substantial injury; and (A)(23), failure to take appropriate corrective action. 1. The evidence sustains a violation for failing to do some of the work in a workmanlike manner. 2. The evidence also sustains a violation of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(23). The Respondent has had nearly eight months since the CWO was issued. The financial difficulties do not constitute a defense but may be considered in mitigation. 3. In view of the above, no additional violation of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(7) is found. 4. The Recommended Order employs contingent revocation rather than suspension because the Respondent should be under no illusions that this work must be satisfactorily and timely completed. The extension of time for three items which will be specifically addressed in the Recommended Order is because those items may not be readily available. Recommended Order In view of the foregoing it is recommended commencing on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter that the Respondent’s Class B license shall be revoked unless the Registrar of Contractors receives written proof that the Respondent has taken effective and appropriate corrective action on those items listed in Exhibit 12, with the exception that the following three items in the further recommendation are subject to the time frame set forth in the further recommendation; It is further recommended that commencing forty-five (45) days from the effective date of the Order entered in this matter that the Respondent’s Class B license shall be revoked unless the Registrar of Contractors receives written proof that the Respondent has taken effective and appropriate corrective action to complete the precast concrete column, two precast fire place faces and the concrete window trim on both levels of the front of the home. It is further recommended that if the Respondent accomplishes the above describe corrective work on or before the respective effective dates of the Order entered in this matter, then the aforementioned revocation shall not take place but rather the Respondent’s Class B license shall be placed on probation for a period of One Hundred-Twenty (120) days. Done this day, April 5, 2000

_________________________________ ALLEN REED Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of April, 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 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826