Notice of Intent to File a Claim of Lean by qse41941

VIEWS: 133 PAGES: 11

More Info
									                    BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
                                  STATE OF OREGON
                                        for the
                         CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARD


In the Matter of the Complaint of:

VIOLET AND CHRISTINA                                                          File No: 120976-104
MARRACCINI,
Complainants                                                                AMENDED1
                                                                     PROPOSED and FINAL ORDER
v.

WENLUND MAINTENANCE LLC,
Respondent

                                           HISTORY OF THE CASE

       On August 12, 2005, Violet and Christina Marraccini (complainants) timely filed this
complaint pursuant to ORS 701.140, 701.143 and 701.145, alleging that Wenlund Maintenance
LLC (respondent) charged for work performed outside the scope of the contract and performed
improper and negligent work on the house and garage located at 3325 N.E. Davis Street in
Portland, Oregon. Respondent was licensed at the time the work was performed. The
Construction Contractors Board (CCB) reviewed the matter, and on October 24, 2005, conducted
an on-site investigation of the complaint. (Ex. 57.) On May 3, 2006, complainants filed a
Statement of Damages seeking $5,426. (Ex. 99.) On October 20, 2006, complainants filed an
Amended Statement of Damages seeking $9,498. (Ex. C132.) On January 16, 2007, the Office
of Administrative Hearings (OAH) received complainants’ Adjustment to Statement of Damages
again seeking $9,498. (Ex. C161.) At hearing, complainants sought monetary damages of
$8,798. (Complainant’s Hearing Memorandum.)

        On May 15, 2006, CCB issued a Proposed Order (Ex. 106) ordering respondent to pay
complainant $4,574, and respondent timely filed a request for a hearing. On June 7, 2006, CCB
referred this matter to OAH to conduct an arbitration hearing under ORS Chapter 701.148(1).
On July 13, 2006, pursuant to ORS 701.148, respondent timely requested a contested case
hearing under ORS Chapter 183. Notice of Hearing was served on the parties by the Office of
Administrative Hearings, in accordance with ORS 701.080.

       On August 31, 2006, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Catherine P. Coburn conducted a
prehearing telephone conference. The hearing set for October 9, 2006 was postponed due to an
OAH transfer. On November 13, 2006, ALJ Coburn conducted a prehearing telephone
conference and postponed the hearing set for November 14, 2006 due to the Amended Statement
of Damages. On January 16, 2007, ALJ Coburn conducted a prehearing telephone conference
and ordered complainants to allow respondent access to the site.

1
    Following the parties’ exceptions, I issue this Amended Proposed Order. Revisions are set forth in bold print.


Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 1 of 11
         On February 7, 2007, ALJ Coburn convened a hearing in Beaverton, Oregon.
Complainants appeared in person and were represented by attorney Jason L. Posner. Managing
member Donald Wenlund appeared in person on behalf of respondent and was represented by
attorney James R. Vestigo. Christina Marraccini, general contractor Charles Olson, licensed
architect Daniel P. Glennon, licensed architect Raphael Goodblatt, and Violet Marraccini
testified on complainants’ behalf. General contractor Bruce Barrett testified on respondent’s
behalf.

       On June 25, 2007, ALJ Coburn continued the hearing in Beaverton, Oregon.
Complainants again appeared in person and were represented by attorney Jason L. Posner.
Managing member Donald Wenlund again appeared in person on behalf of respondent and was
represented by attorney James R. Vestigo. Christina Marraccini testified on complainants’
behalf and Donald Wenlund testified on respondent’s behalf. The record closed upon
adjournment.

       On July 25, 2007, I published a Proposed and Final Order. On August 14, 2007,
complainants filed exceptions. On September 11, 2007, respondent replied. Having
considered the parties’ exceptions and arguments, I hereby publish this Amended
Proposed and Final Order.

                                           ISSUES

       1. Whether respondent breached the parties’ contract by charging for work performed
outside the scope of the contract.

       2. Whether respondent performed negligent or improper work on the house and garage
located at 3325 N.E. Davis in Portland, Oregon.

                                   EVIDENTIARY RULINGS

        CCB Exhibits 1 through 178 were admitted into the record without objection.
Complainants’ Exhibits C132 through C139 and C143 through C167 were admitted into the
record without objection. I overruled respondent’s hearsay objection to Exhibits C140 and C141
and I overruled respondent’s relevance objection to C142; they were admitted into the record. I
sustained respondent’s relevance objection to complainants’ proposed Exhibits C164 through
C167 and they were not admitted into the record. I sustained respondent’s timeliness objection
to complainant’s proposed Exhibits C168 through C180 and they were used only to refresh the
memory of complainants’ witness, Christina Marraccini.

        Respondent’s Exhibits R101 through R115 were admitted into the record without
objection. Respondent withdrew proposed Exhibits R116 through R118. I sustained
complainant’s timeliness objection to proposed Exhibits R119 through R121 and they were not
admitted into the record. The hearing was concluded and the record was closed on June 25,
2007.




Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 2 of 11
                                        FINDINGS OF FACT

        1. The house and garage located at 3325 NE Davis Street were built in the 1920’s and
Violet Marraccini has owned the property since the 1950’s. (Ex. C136; testimony of Christina
Marraccini.) Appurtenant to the house is a detached garage which originally shared a common
east wall with the neighbor’s garage along the property line. (Testimony of Christina
Marraccini.) Over the years, complainants failed to maintain the garage, rendering it in a
severely deteriorated condition. (Ex. 59; testimony of Wenlund and Barrett.) For many years, a
heavy grape arbor grew over the west side of the garage, gradually causing the garage to lean to
the west. (Testimony of Christina Marraccini and Wenlund.) As the garage gradually sagged to
the west, the homeowners trimmed the garage doors diagonally at top and bottom, resulting in
misshapen doors. (Testimony of Wenlund.) In approximately 2003, the neighbors demolished
their half of the garage, leaving complainants’ half of the garage without support to the east.
(Ex. C136.) In 2004, the garage leaned 16 degrees to the west and the garage doors were rotten,
with broken glass and missing hardware and did not close. (Testimony of Christina Marraccini
and Wenlund.)

        2. In early July 2004, Christina Marraccini met with respondent to discuss a project to
straighten the garage, install a gabled roof over the existing flat garage roof, and stabilize a free
standing grape arbor. Christina Marraccini clearly stated and emphasized that she was interested
in a low cost project involving minimal repair and was willing to spend no more than $5,000 on
the project. (Testimony of Christina Marraccini.)

        3. On July 5, 2004, respondent submitted a written proposal to “straighten and repair
garage and fix arbor to stand alone” for $5,466. (Ex. 7.) The proposal lists various materials and
specifies, “Labor to straighten garage and repair and install new roof and siding on one side,
remove arbor from side of garage to make it stand alone.” (Id.) The proposal reads, “Additional
work requested must be in writing – will be billed at time and material.” (Id.)

         4. Respondent sent a letter dated August 17, 2004 to Violet Marraccini, again proposing
to perform the project for $5,466 and indicating that no building permits were necessary. (Ex.
35.) Respondent proposed to “install [3] 4x4 posts in the ground with cement and remove the
arbor from the garage wall.” (Ex. 35.) The letter does not specify the number of horizontal
beams respondent would install in the grape arbor. (Id.) Respondent attached a copy of the
initial proposal, which was re-dated August 17, 2004. (Exs. 7 and 36; testimony of Wenlund.)

       5. On August 21, 2004, the parties entered into a written contract, which incorporates the
two earlier proposals. (Exs. 5, 7 and 36.) The contract specifies that respondent agreed to
perform only the work listed on the July 5 and August 17 proposals. (Ex. 5.) The contract reads,
“Customer requesting additional work to be made in writing.” (Id.)

         6. The documents that the parties exchanged before respondent began working on the
project do not list moss removal from the house, caulking on the house, repair of garage doors or
installing an exterior light. (Exs. 5, 7, 35 and 36.) These documents contain no reference to
structural framing or garage doors and no representation that the garage doors would close after



Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 3 of 11
the project. (Id.) The same documents do not list the plywood for which respondent billed
complainants in a subsequent invoice. (Exs. 5, 7, 8, 35, and 36.)

        7. From October 11 through October 18, 2004, respondent performed the project. (Ex.
1.) Respondent straightened the garage so that it stood upright, installed plywood over the
existing flat garage roof and constructed a gabled roof. (Ex. C159; testimony of Christina
Marraccini and Wenlund.) Respondent failed to obtain required plans, permit and inspections
for the gabled roof. (Exs. 58, C134; testimony of Olson, Goodblatt.)

       8. Respondent left exposed nail points protruding through the garage ceiling which is
approximately seven feet high, creating a hazard. (Ex. 58; testimony of Christina Marraccini.)

       9. Respondent bolstered the grape arbor with 3 upright posts set in concrete and one
horizontal beam. (Ex. C159; testimony of Christina Marraccini and Wenlund.)

       10. Respondent installed horizontal siding on the east side of the garage where the
neighbors had removed their portion of the garage. This siding is gapped beyond industry
standard and contacts the ground, wicking rainwater. (Exs. 60 and C158.)

        11. Respondent removed an existing exterior garage light and replaced it with a new
dawn to dusk light. (Testimony of Christina Marraccini and Wenlund.) Respondent did not
obtain a required electrical permit. (Ex. 60.)

        12. Respondent removed moss from the house, caulked one foundation crack and several
siding bee holes in the house, reinforced the garage doors and installed a new exterior light
fixture on the garage. (Testimony of Christina Marraccini and Wenlund.) After respondent
reinforced the garage doors, the doors did not close. (Ex. C157, C160; testimony of Christina
Marraccini.) These tasks are not listed in the parties’ contract or in the proposals incorporated
into the contract. (Exs. 5, 7, and 36.) The parties did not execute any written change order. (Ex.
57: testimony of Christina Marraccini and Wenlund.)

       13. On October 20, 2004, respondent submitted an invoice to complainants for $6,093.
(Ex. 8.) The invoice listed “Additional Work Requested” including repairing garage doors,
plywood, removing moss, caulking foundation and siding holes, and exterior light. (Id.)

       14. By letter dated November 5, 2004, respondent notified complainants that the cost of
the additional projects was $627. (Ex. 37.) On November 26, 2004, respondent submitted an
invoice to complainants for $6,204. (Ex. 38.) By letter dated November 26, 2004, complainants
disputed the billing and notified respondent of their intent to file a CCB claim. (Ex. 10.)

        15. Complainants refused to pay and respondent filed a lien against the property. (Ex.
14.) On January 27, 2005, complainants paid respondent $6,245, which included $158 ($21 lien
filing fee + $118 interest + $19 interest.) (Exs. 7, 8, 13. 14, 19; .)

       16. On October 17, 2005, CCB conducted an onsite investigation which was attended by
Violet Marraccini, Christina Marraccini, and their attorney, Wade V. Regier, as well as Ben


Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 4 of 11
Wenlund, agent for respondent and its attorney, James R. Vestigo. (Ex. 57.) The CCB
investigator recommended that respondent obtain permits and inspections for the garage gabled
roof. Next, the CCB investigator recommended that respondent reimburse complainants $197
for the labor and material costs of placing plywood over the existing flat roof’s skip sheathing.
Next, the CCB investigator found that respondent improperly left nails exposed protruding
through the low garage ceiling, causing a hazard. Concerning the garage doors, the CCB
investigator noted, “Notwithstanding the fact that permanent twist and age prevent the doors
from being anywhere near the condition claimant desires, the work performed by the respondent
does not meet the minimum industry standard and generally accepted building practice…The
respondent knew or should have known that something would have to be done if the existing
door were to remain after the straitening of the garage. If according to respondent, the door work
was not included in the proposal, then the respondent could have excluded working on the garage
doors.” Next, the CCB investigator noted that respondent improperly installed siding on the
garage and recommended caulking to fill horizontal gaps and taking corrective action to relieve
contact between siding and the ground. Finally, the CCB investigator noted that the exterior
garage light that respondent had installed the exterior garage light improperly and recommended
that respondent obtain electrical permits and inspections. (Exs. 57 – 60.)

       17. The reasonable cost of architectural plans, permits and inspections for the garage roof
is $1,193. (Ex. C134.) The reasonable cost of correcting the garage siding is $650 and the
reasonable cost of cutting nails protruding through the garage ceiling is $450. (Id.)

                                    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       1. Respondent breached the parties’ contract by charging for work performed outside the
scope of the contract.

       2. Respondent performed negligent or improper work on the garage located at 3325 N.E.
Davis in Portland, Oregon.

                                           OPINION

        The person making the complaint has the burden of proving the complaint. ORS
183.450(2); Salem Decorating v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 116 Or App, 170 (1992), rev
den 315 Or 643 (1993). In a contested case proceeding, the party bearing the burden of proof
must establish the facts asserted concerning each claim item by a preponderance of the evidence.
ORS 183.450(5); Gallant v. Board of Medical Examiners, 159 Or App 175, 180 (1999). Under
OAR 812-004-0535, complainants must prove that they suffered damages, that those damages
were caused by the respondent and that the monetary value of those damages is substantiated on
the record. Pursuant to OAR 812-009-0100, if the complainants do not carry this burden of
proof, the administrative law judge must dismiss the complaint for any particular claim item.

A. Construction Lien Expenses

       Complainants seek monetary damages of $158 as reimbursement from respondent
for costs they incurred in discharging respondent’s construction lien against the property.


Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 5 of 11
These include respondent’s $21 lien filing fee and interest amounts of $118 and $19 ($21 +
$118 + $19 = $158).

          OAR 812-004-0250 provides in pertinent part:

                   (1) Except as provided in section (2) of this rule and subject to
                   OAR 812-010-04202, an order or arbitration award of the
                   board awarding monetary damages in a complaint that are
                   payable from respondent's bond required under ORS 701.085,
                   including, but not limited to an order of the board arising from
                   a judgment, award or decision by a court, arbitrator or other
                   entity may not include an award for:

                   (a) Attorney fees;

                   (b) Court costs;

                   (c) Interest;

                   (d) Costs to pursue litigation or the complaint;

                   (e) Service charges or fees; or

                   (f) Other damages not directly related to negligent or improper
                   work under the contract or breach of the contract that is the
                   basis of the complaint.

                   (2) An order or arbitration award by the board awarding
                   monetary damages that are payable from respondent's bond
                   required under ORS 701.085 may include an award for
                   attorney fees, costs, interest or other costs as follows:

                   (a) An order in a construction lien complaint may include
                   attorney fees, court costs, interest and service charges allowed
                   under OAR 812-004-0530(5).

       Pursuant to OAR 812-004-0250(1)(c) and (e), interest and fees are not recoverable in
a CCB order. Moreover, the exception set forth in OAR 812-004-0250(2)(a) is inapposite
because, in the present case, complainants filed a Statement of Damages rather than a
construction lien complaint. For these reasons, complainants are entitled to no monetary
damages for this claim item.



2
    OAR Chapter 812, Division 10 applies to CCB arbitrations. The present dispute is a contested case.




Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 6 of 11
B. Outside Scope of Contract

       1.   Moss removal from house
       2.   Caulking foundation and siding on house
       3.   Repair of garage doors
       4.   Installation of exterior light fixture on garage
       5.   Plywood

        Complainants seek monetary damages of $627, asserting that respondent charged them
for certain tasks that respondent performed, but complainants did not agree to pay for. $627 is
the difference between the $5,466 contract price (Exs. 5, 7, 35) and the $6,093 amount billed
(Ex. 8). Included in this amount, complainants assert that respondent charged them for
additional plywood that they did not agree to pay for.

        The testimonial record reflects a dispute between the parties concerning the content of
their discussions about these items and whether the complainants agreed to pay respondent for
them, and if so, how much they agreed to pay. Complainants contend that respondent lead them
to believe that he would provide these items gratis, or that their cost was included in the initial
contract price of $5,466. In contrast, respondent asserts that the complainants requested that he
perform these tasks and agreed to pay costs over and above the initial contract price of $5,466.

        If contract terms are unambiguous, the intentions of the parties are not considered.
CH2M Hill Northwest Inc. v. Parktel Inc., 107 Or App 461 (1991). The parties’ contract dated
August 21, 2004 incorporated the proposals dated July 5, 2004 and August 17, 2004. The
proposals unambiguously describe the work to be performed as follows: “Straighten and repair
garage. Fix arbor to stand alone.” The parties’ contract unambiguously provides, “Additional
work requested must be in writing.” Neither the proposals nor the parties’ contract lists any of
the items that complainants contend were provided outside the scope of the contract. Also, the
proposals list materials not including the plywood that was listed on the $627 invoice.

       Even if the parties’ contract were ambiguous, it would be construed against the
respondent contractor as the drafter. See Weber v. Kamyr, Inc., 269 Or 619, 631 (1974) (The
terms of an ambiguous contract are construed against the drafter). Presumably, respondent
included the unambiguous contract term requiring written change orders for the purpose of
preventing credibility disputes. However, the parties did not execute any written change order
by which complainants agreed to pay respondent for providing these items. Consequently,
pursuant to the lien, respondent was improperly paid for this labor and material. Therefore,
complainants are entitled to $627 in monetary damages as a refund for items provided outside
the scope of the parties’ contract.

        In exceptions, complainants reassert that they are entitled to additional monetary
damages of $350 to install a new exterior light on the garage. In support of their position,
complainants argue that respondent failed to obtain an electrical permit and improperly
installed a light which failed shortly after it was installed. However, the documentary
evidence establishes that the exterior light was outside the scope of the parties’ contract.
The exterior light was not listed on the documents the parties exchanged before October 11


Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 7 of 11
through 18, 2004, when respondent performed the project. (Exs. 5, 7, 35 and 36.) After
respondent performed the project, he listed the exterior light on the invoice dated October
20, 2007. (Ex. 8.) Moreover, the contract drafted by respondent required any additional
work to be agreed in writing, but the record contains no written agreement whereby
complainants agreed to pay for installation of an exterior light. Therefore, any costs
attributed to the exterior light are properly included in the $627 award for claim items
outside the scope of the contract and complainants may not be awarded monetary damages
twice for the same claim item. For these reasons, complainants are entitled to no additional
monetary damages for the exterior light.

       In exceptions, complainants reassert that they are entitled to additional monetary
damages of $1,080 to repair the garage doors. In support of their position, complainants
argue that respondent performed some repair on the garage doors, but they still do not
close completely. Repair of the garage doors was not listed on the documents the parties
exchanged before October 11 through 18, 2004, when respondent performed the project.
(Exs. 5, 7, 35 and 36.) After respondent performed the project, he listed the garage doors
on the invoice dated October 20, 2007. (Ex. 8.) Moreover, the contract drafted by
respondent required any additional work to be agreed in writing, but the record contains
no written agreement whereby complainants agreed to pay for garage door repair.
Therefore, any costs attributed to the garage doors are properly included in the $627
award for claim items outside the scope of the contract and complainants may not be
awarded monetary damages twice for the same claim item. For these reasons,
complainants are entitled to no additional monetary damages for the garage doors.

B. Garage Roof Plans, Permits, Inspections

        Complainants seek monetary damages of $1,193 for architectural plans, permits and
inspections for the garage gabled roof. By letter dated August 17, 2004, respondent mistakenly
informed complainants that no building permit was required for constructing a gabled roof on the
existing flat garage. On the contrary, plans, permits and inspections are required for installing a
gabled roof on an existing garage on the property line. As a licensed contractor, respondent was
responsible to know that a building permit was required for the project. Therefore, complainants
are entitled to monetary damages of $1,193 for these claim items.

C. Garage Structural Framing

        Complainants seek monetary damages of $3,680 for repairing the structural framing of
the garage. The CCB investigator recommended that respondent bear the cost of obtaining plans,
permits and inspections and complainants are entitled to monetary damages for those claim
items, as explained above.

        However, complainants bargained for a low cost project involving minimal repairs.
Christina Marraccini clearly stated and emphasized that she wanted to pay no more than $5,000
for the project. Although the parties eventually entered into a contract whereby respondent
agreed to perform the project for $5,466, complainants did not bargain for a rebuild of the
garage. The terms of the parties’ contract are unambiguous and do not include garage structural


Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 8 of 11
framing. Neither the parties’ contract, nor the two proposals incorporated into the contract list
structural framing as a task included in the $5,466 contract price. Therefore, complainants are
not entitled to monetary damages for this claim item.

        In exceptions, complainants reassert that they are entitled to monetary damages of
$3,680 to obtain new structural framing of the garage. However, as explained above,
complainants did not bargain for structural framing. At hearing, Christina Marraccini
explicitly and consistently testified that in negotiating the contract price, she told
respondent that she wanted a repair that could be obtained for no more than $5,000. She
reiterated that she was interested in a low cost project involving limited repair and was
willing to spend no more than $5,000 on the project. Later, she told respondent that she
did not want to pay any more than $5,466. According to Christina Marraccini’s testimony,
she did not ask respondent for a bid on a complete garage repair including structural
reframing. Rather, she arbitrarily set a maximum dollar figure and agreed to a limited
repair. In seeking monetary damages for structural repair, complainants reach beyond
the benefit of the bargain.

D. Garage Siding

         Complainants seek monetary damages of $650 to install flashing and caulking to relieve
contact between garage siding and concrete on the ground which causes rain wicking.
Respondent’s siding installation failed to meet industry standards and the reasonable cost of this
corrective action is $650. Therefore, complainants are entitled to monetary damages of $650 for
this claim item.

E. Exposed Nails

       Complainants seek monetary damages of $450 to cut exposed nails inside the garage and
over the exterior eaves. When respondent installed the new garage gabled roof, he left nails
points protruding through the low ceiling, creating a safety hazard. The reasonable cost of
cutting the exposed nail points is $450. Therefore, complainants are entitled to monetary
damages of $450 for this claim item.

F. Grape Arbor

       Complainants seek monetary damages of $175 to install two horizontal beams in the
grape arbor. Respondent installed one horizontal beam, but complainants now opine that
additional horizontal beams would support the grape vines better.

        Extrinsic evidence may reflect the parties’ intent. Anderson v. Divito, 138 Or App 272
(1995). The parties’ contract and the proposals incorporated therein do not specify the number
of horizontal beams included in the contract price of $5,466. However, before the parties entered
into the contract, respondent wrote a letter to complainants specifying, “We would install [3] 4x4
posts in the ground with cement and remove the arbor from the garage wall. The 4x4 posts
would hold your arbor and grape vine.” (Ex. 35.)



Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 9 of 11
        After respondent completed the project, complainants decided that they preferred
multiple horizontal beams in the grape arbor. Unfortunately, complainants did not bargain for
multiple horizontal beams. What they did bargain for was a low cost project involving minimal
repair; multiple beams were not included in the $5,466 contract price. Therefore, complainants
are not entitled to monetary damages for this claim item.

G. Conclusion

       In conclusion, complainants are entitled to monetary damages as follows:

Outside Scope of Contract:                         $ 627
Garage Roof Plans, Permits, Inspections            $1,193
Garage Siding                                      $ 650
Protruding Nails                                   $ 450
                                                   $ 2,920

        Additionally, pursuant to ORS 701.147(4) and OAR 812-004-0250(2)(c), complainants
are entitled to recover the $50 CCB processing fee.

                                            ORDER

       Respondent shall pay complainant $2,970 ($2,920 + $50 processing fee).

       Dated this 10th day of October, 2007.


                                             _______________________________________
                                             Catherine P. Coburn, Administrative Law Judge
                                             Office of Administrative Hearings


                            NOTICE OF REVIEW AND APPEAL RIGHTS

As provided in ORS 183.460, any party that disagrees with this Proposed and Final Order may
file written exceptions, including argument. If you choose to file exceptions, carefully follow the
instructions enclosed with this order. Mail your exceptions to the Construction Contractors
Board (CCB) at the address provided below. CCB must receive written exceptions on or before
the 21st day after this order was mailed to the parties. If CCB does not receive your written
exceptions on or before the 21st day after this order was so mailed, your exceptions will not be
considered.
If exceptions are timely received, CCB will send the opposing party a copy of the written
exceptions. At the same time, CCB will send both parties information and guidelines for
participating in the exceptions process. Thereafter, the Construction Contractors Board Appeal
Committee (Appeal Committee) will consider the exceptions at an Appeal Committee meeting.
This will not be a new hearing. The Appeal Committee will only review the original hearing



Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 10 of 11
record and this order. The Appeal Committee will not consider evidence that was not a part of
the original hearing record.

If CCB does not timely receive exceptions, this order will automatically become final on the
21st day following the date of issuance of this order, unless CCB requests the ALJ to review
and consider revising the order. OAR 812-009-0160. If this order becomes final, you are
entitled to request judicial review pursuant to the provisions of ORS 183.482, by filing a petition
for judicial review with the Court of Appeals within 60 days from the date that this order
becomes final. Mail any exceptions or a copy of any petition for judicial review to:


                             Assistant to Dispute Resolution Manager
                                 Construction Contractors Board
                                          PO Box 14140
                                     Salem, OR 97309-5052




Marraccini v. Wenlund Maintenance LLC
CCB File No. 120976-104
Page 11 of 11

								
To top