ALJDEC

99F-P0202-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-09-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 6, 1999 (Show Low, Arizona)

APPEARANCES: Gretchen Pearman appeared on her own behalf as Complainant; no one appeared on behalf of Respondent Merrill Development Corporation.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Eric A. Bryant _____________________________________________________________________

Complainant Gretchen Doris Pearman brings this action regarding Respondent’s failure to correct remodeling work performed at Complainant’s home. As noted above, neither Respondent’s Qualifying Party David Merrill nor anyone else from 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. In May 1998, David Merrill (“Respondent”) did some remodeling work at Complainant’s house in Show Low, Arizona. Respondent installed a new shower and a new door. Two weeks later, the shower surface began peeling. Complainant informed Respondent about it and Respondent said he would take care of it. Weeks later, Respondent told Complainant that he had ordered a new shower and would need more money because it was an upgrade. Complainant agreed and gave Respondent a deposit of $80. Respondent never contacted Complainant again, despite numerous attempts by Complainant to get in touch with Respondent and although Respondent lived only a few houses down the street from Complainant. 2. In October 1998, Respondent put his ROC license on inactive status. 3. In December 1998, with no other alternative, Complainant filed her complaint at the ROC. Inspector Bernie St. John inspected the work on February 24, 1999. Respondent was present at the jobsite inspection. Based on his findings, the Inspector issued a Corrective Work Order (CWO) dated the same day. The CWO ordered Respondent to remove and replace the surface panels of the shower, correct the smeared caulking around the shower, and correct repair work done around the new door so that it matches the surrounding area. Respondent was given 15 days to perform the corrections. 4. Respondent has made no effort to comply with the CWO. 5. Inspector St. John did another inspection on July 21, 1999. Respondent was not present. The Inspector found more deterioration to the shower panels and the door in the same condition as before. (See Exhibits B through G, photographs of the areas.) 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 denied the allegations and made it clear that he had no intention of complying with the CWO. 7. Respondent did return the $80 deposit to Complainant sometime before 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 voluntarily put its license on inactive status in October 1998. 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 substantially harmed Complainant and left Complainant high and dry. Furthermore, Respondent refuses to comply with the CWO. Such disregard for duties as a licensee and obligations to customers should not be tolerated. 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 118327 be revoked.

Done this 3rd day of September 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Eric A. Bryant Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this ___ day of September 1999, to:

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

By ___________________________

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

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