This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a licensed contractor and certified qualifying party who faced complaints from homeowners regarding construction defects in their homes. A city building inspector found evidence of building code violations, including structural issues, leaks, and improperly sealed components. The contractor failed to attend mediation meetings regarding the complaints, leading to an administrative hearing and subsequent revocation of his contractor's license and qualifying party certificate (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- New Mexico Construction Industries Division, 1994: Revoked the contractor's license and qualifying party certificate and imposed a $2,000 fine (para 4).
- District Court of Eddy County, 1995: Affirmed the decision of the Construction Industries Division (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Contractor): Argued that the investigator failed to obtain his statement, the notice was insufficient to inform him that his qualifying party certificate was at risk, he was denied adequate discovery, and there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation (para 4).
- Respondents (Construction Industries Division and Commission): Contended that the appellant's arguments were meritless, that he waived objections by failing to raise them during the administrative hearing, and that the evidence supported the revocation (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Did the investigator fail to comply with statutory requirements by not obtaining the contractor's statement?
- Was the notice provided to the contractor sufficient to inform him that his qualifying party certificate was in jeopardy?
- Was the contractor denied adequate discovery before the administrative hearing?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the contractor's license and qualifying party certificate?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the decisions of the Construction Industries Division and the district court, upholding the revocation of the contractor's license and qualifying party certificate (para 22).
Reasons
Per Frost CJ (Baca and Minzner JJ. concurring):
Investigation: The court rejected the contractor's argument that the investigator was required to obtain his statement. The statutory language did not impose a mandatory duty to secure a statement from the contractor, and the investigator made reasonable efforts to gather pertinent information. Additionally, the contractor waived this objection by failing to raise it during the administrative hearing (paras 7-10).
Notice: The court found that the notice provided to the contractor was sufficient to satisfy due process. Although the notice did not explicitly state that the qualifying party certificate was in jeopardy, the contractor had actual knowledge of this risk and did not demonstrate any prejudice from the alleged defect. Furthermore, the contractor waived his objection by failing to raise it at the administrative hearing (paras 11-15).
Discovery: The court held that the contractor was not denied adequate discovery. The notices and documents were properly served via certified mail, and the contractor's family members acted as his agents in accepting delivery. The court found no reversible error in the Construction Industries Division's failure to provide additional copies of the documents upon request (paras 16-20).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the revocation decision. Testimony from the complainants, the building inspector, and other witnesses, as well as documentary evidence, demonstrated significant building code violations. The contractor had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present his defense (para 21).
The court affirmed the revocation of the contractor's license and qualifying party certificate (para 22).