ALJDEC

99F-P0251-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-10-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|GOLDEN HORSE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY|§| | |INC., |§|CASE NO.: P99-0251 | |Complainant, |§| | | |§|DOCKET NO.: 99F-P0251-ROC | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No.115115, Class B-02 of|§|DECISION AND ORDER ON REHEARING | |MASTERTECH INC., (CORP.), |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: September 28, 1999, at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through its president, Richard Philips. The Respondent appeared through its qualifying party, Daniel Rooney. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for rehearing on September 28, 1999. The Complainant appeared through its president, Richard Philips, and the Respondent appeared through its qualifying party, Daniel Rooney. 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-02 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. The complaint at issue involves several separate commercial construction sites where the Complainant functioned as a framing subcontractor for the Respondent.

3. The Complaint is based on the Complainant’s allegation that the Respondent has failed to pay the Complainant for construction work performed on its projects despite repeated demands that it do so.

4. There was no dispute that the Respondent has the capability to pay the Complainant the sums claimed as due and owing.

5. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent owes it the sum of $7,014.82 for the construction work that the Complainant performed for the Respondent.

6. The Respondent asserts that it is entitled to an offset of approximately $6,500.00 for the Complainant’s allegedly unauthorized demolition and removal of a wood building on one of the construction sites and for an additional $3,500.00 for the cost of cleaning up the construction debris that was left on the building site as a result of the Complainant’s allegedly unauthorized actions in causing the demolition and removal of the building.

7. The Respondent also presented a claim for an off-set for 25 new stem- panels that were missing after the Complainant completed its work for the Respondent. The Respondent alleged that the stem-panels were valued at $48.00 a piece.

8. The Respondent also asserted an unspecified off-set for numerous instances of allegedly unworkmanlike construction by the Complainant.

9. There was no dispute that the Complainant did demolish a building at one of the construction sites and that the Complainant utilized material from the demolition site to construct a shed at the Complainant’s place of business. However, the parties were in sharp dispute as to whether the Complainant had permission to demolish the building and use materials from the job-site for its own uses.

10. There was no dispute that the Respondent had lost over 25 new stem- walls from the job-sites but there was no credible evidence as to what happened to the missing stem-walls.

11. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that there were numerous instances of unsatisfactory workmanship in the Complainant’s work on one of the job-sites but there was no request that the work be corrected or any value given as to cost of correction.

12. The Respondent’s actions in its refusal to pay the Complainant the claimed sum based upon the Respondent’s alleged offsets are found to be in good faith and to constitute a genuine money dispute that will necessarily require a civil adjudication and award of money damages and should be resolved, if at all, in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar of Contractors is not empowered to adjudicate and award money damages. Until and unless any claimed obligation is reduced to judgment by a civil court of competent jurisdiction no violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. Section 1154(A) would be supportable.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Citation No.P99- 0251, together with the complaint upon which it is based, be closed.

Dated this 12th day of October, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas

Original mailed this day of October, 1999 to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Attn: Valerie Hicks or Joyce Armijo Registrar of Contractors 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

Transmitted by:

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