FRJ CORP. v. Mason
Decision Date | 12 April 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 99-50.,99-50. |
Citation | 4 P.3d 896 |
Parties | FRJ CORPORATION, License # 98 02480, FRJ Corporation, License # 98 02711, James P. Federer, License # 99 04575, James P. Federer, License # 98 03150, Appellants (Petitioners), v. Dick MASON, Chief Building Inspector, Appellee (Respondent). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellants: Walter Urbigkit of Frontier Law Center, Cheyenne, WY.
Representing Appellee: Mary B. Guthrie, City Attorney, and Bill G. Hibbler, Special Assistant City Attorney, Cheyenne, WY.
Before LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, GOLDEN, and HILL, JJ., and TAYLOR, J., Ret.
After a contested case hearing, the City of Cheyenne Contractor Licensing Board (Board) disciplined the appellants, FRJ Corporation and James Federer, for failure to obtain the required permits and failure to pay the required fees in connection with plumbing work performed within the city limits of Cheyenne. Appellants sought review in the district court, and the matter was certified to this court under W.R.A.P. 12.09. We affirm the Board's decision to suspend the appellants' licenses for ninety days, which decision was rendered as a result of a contested case hearing in which the Board used the services of a hearing examiner.
Appellants state this issue:
The appellee in this matter is Dick Mason, Chief Building Inspector (Inspector) for the City of Cheyenne. He submits three issues for our consideration:
In June of 1997, appellants, James Federer (Federer), a master plumber with sewer and water main qualified supervisor licenses, and FRJ Corporation (FRJ), a Wyoming corporation, applied with and paid fees to the Board of Public Utilities (BOPU), in connection with the construction of townhouses located at 5701 and 5703 Atlantic Drive in Cheyenne. Federer and FRJ hold plumbing and pipe fitting and sewer and water main contractor licenses.
During the same time period, another building was erected behind the 5703 Atlantic property (Atlantic property) at 700 Gettysburg Drive (Gettysburg property). The Gettysburg property lies outside Cheyenne's city limits. The city plumbing inspector testified that upon his initial inspection of the Atlantic property, he found the plumbing properly constructed. As is customary with all such inspections, the plumbing inspector presumed the area would be backfilled immediately after his approval with no changes made.
Meanwhile, a concerned neighbor, who had been watching the development, questioned the contractors about the nature of the Gettysburg property, especially given the fact that the building was equipped with windows and what appeared to be a bathroom. The contractors assured the neighbor that the building was being constructed as a storage facility. Unsatisfied with this answer, she called city officials and discovered there was no well permit for the Gettysburg property. In the beginning of February of 1998, the neighbor turned a spigot on the outside of the Gettysburg property and water came out. She again contacted city officials.
As a result of the neighbor's multiple contacts with city building officials and reports of an unpermitted water source to the Gettysburg property, the plumbing inspector revisited the Atlantic property and discovered an open ditch outside the property which contained unauthorized plumbing and taps into the city water and sewer system. In addition to serving the Atlantic property, the lines served the Gettysburg property. Because the appellants failed to obtain the required additional permits and pay fees for the Gettysburg property, the plumbing inspector concluded that the appellants had violated city building and plumbing regulations.
BOPU and the City of Cheyenne Chief Building Inspector filed contractor complaints with the Board on March 2 and March 11, 1998, alleging the appellants failed to comply with the regulations. After several continuances, the Board held a contested case hearing on October 12, 1998, entering its Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order, on November 10, 1998. The Board determined that the appellants had violated various provisions of the code and regulations and were, therefore, subject to a ninety-day suspension of their licenses.
In reviewing cases certified under W.R.A.P. 12.09, this court applies the appellate standards which are applicable to a reviewing court of the first instance. Thomas v. Star Aggregates, Inc., 982 P.2d 714, 715 (Wyo.1999). Rule 12.09(a) limits judicial review of administrative decisions to a determination of those matters which are specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) (Lexis 1999), which provides in pertinent part:
Substantial evidence is "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate to support an agency's conclusion." Whiteman v. Workers' Safety &...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dorr v. BD. OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
...notice and complaint may be pursued at a contested case hearing and considered in issuance of an agency decision. FRJ Corporation v. Mason, 4 P.3d 896, 900 (Wyo.2000). ...