[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-268540-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-268540-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","proposed-decision-maryland-home-improvement-commission-guaranty-fund-claim","Proposed Decision - Maryland Home Improvement Commission Guaranty Fund Claim","","Proposed Decision addresses a claim filed with the Maryland Home Improvement Commission Guaranty Fund seeking reimbursement of $33,925.35 for alleged losses arising from a home improvement contract. The matter followed a Hearing Order and was heard by an Administrative Law Judge after referral from the MHIC. Key issues focus on whether compensable actual loss occurred and, if so, the amount. Evidence includes multiple bathroom and related photographs, contract and proposal documents, payment records, and text and email communications among the parties.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/proposed-decision-maryland-home-improvement-commission-guaranty-fund-claim/268540/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/proposed-decision-maryland-home-improvement-commission-guaranty-fund-claim/268540.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Bintang","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What claim was filed with the Maryland Home Improvement Commission Guaranty Fund?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Cheryl McIntyre filed a claim seeking reimbursement for alleged actual losses related to a home improvement contract with Jose Pocasangre Martinez, trading as Sp2all LLC.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What are the main issues addressed in the proposed decision?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The proposed decision considers whether the claimant sustained compensable actual loss due to the respondent’s acts or omissions, and if so, the amount of that compensable loss.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What evidence was presented during the hearing?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The claimant introduced numerous exhibits including photographs, construction contract agreements and proposals, payment records, and text and email communications, while the respondent offered no exhibits and the fund presented no testimony.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},268540,1789432154,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":109,"preview_page_count":4},962085564381,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIMOF CHERYL MCINTYRE,  \n*BEFORE RICHARDO'CONNOR,  \n*ADMINISTRATIVELAW JUDGE,  \nCLAIMANT  \n*THE MARYLAND OFFICE  \nAGAINST THE MARYLAND HOME *OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS  \nIMPROVEMENT GUARANTY FUND  \nFOR THE ALLEGED ACTS OR        *  \nOMISSIONS OF.JOSE POCASANGRE *  \nMARTINEZ,  \n*  \n*OAH No.:LABOR-HIC-02-23-06665  \nT/A SP2ALLLLC,  \n*MHIC No.:22(75)825  \nRESPONDENT  \n# PROPOSED DECISION\n\nSTATEMENT OF THE CASEISSUES  \nSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCEPROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTDISCUSSION  \n# PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OFLAW.RECOMMENDED ORDER\n\nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE  \nOn October 31,2022,Cheryl McIntyre(Claimant)filed a claim with the Maryland HomeImprovement Commission(MHIC)¹Guaranty Fund(Fund)for reimbursement of $33,925.35 foractual losses allegedly suffered as a result of a home improvement contract with Jose PocasangreMartinez,trading as Sp2all LLC(Respondent).Md.Code Ann.,Bus.Reg.§§8-401 to-411  \n(2015&Supp.2023).²On February 3,2023,the MHIC issued a Hearing Order on the claim.OnFebruary 14,2023,the MHIC forwarded the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings(OAH)for a hearing.  \nOn July 25,2023,I held a hearing at the OAH in Rockville,Maryland.Bus.Reg.§§8-407(a),8-312.Freddie Dominguez,Assistant Attorney General,represented the Fund.Rebekah D.Lusk,Esquire,represented the Claimant,who was present.The Respondentparticipated without representation.  \nThe contested case provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act,the Department'shearing regulations,and the Rules of Procedure of the OAH govern procedure.Md.Code Ann.,State Gov't §610-201 through 10-226(2021 &Supp.2023);Code of Maryland Regulations(COMAR)09.01.03;COMAR 28.02.01.  \n# ISSUES\n\n1.   Did the Claimant sustain an actual loss compensable by the Fund as a result of theRespondent's acts or omissions?  \n2.    If so,what is the amount of the compensable loss?  \n# SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE\n\nExhibits  \nI admitted into evidence the following exhibits offered by the Claimant:  \nClt.Ex.1.   Nine photographs of the master bathroom,taken May 30,2023.  \nClt.Ex.2.Four photographs of the hall bathroom;taken May 30,2023.  \nClt.Ex.3.  Three photographs of wiring and vents in the attic,taken May 30,2023.  \nClt.Ex.4.Five photographs of the basement stairs,taken May 30,2023.  \nClt.Ex.5.Construction Contractor Agreement and Proposal,October 28,2021.  \nClt.Ex.6.Basement Proposal,undated.  \nClt.Ex.7.Records of payments to the Respondent,October 27,2021,to November 21,2021.  \nClt.Ex.8.Text messages between the Claimant and the Respondent,November 17,2021,toDecember 1,2021.  \nAmendments to the bathroom contract and the Claimant's response,undated.  \nClt.Ex.9.  \nClt.Ex.10.Email from the Claimant to the Respondent,“Walkthrough After Remodeling,”January 4,2022.  \nClt.Ex.11.Text messages between the Claimant and the Respondent,December 7,2021,toDecember 11,2021.  \nClt.Ex.12.Emails between the Claimant and the Respondent,December 13,2021.  \nClt.Ex.13.Text message from the Claimant to the Respondent,December 13,2021.  \nClt.Ex.14.Three photographs of the master bathroom,taken May 2023.  \nClt.Ex.15.Three photographs of the master bathroom,taken May 2023.  \nClt.Ex.16.One photograph of the master bathroom,taken May 2023.  \nClt.Ex.17.Six photographs of the master bathroom,taken May 2023.  \nClt.Ex.18.Four photographs of the master bathroom,taken May 2023.  \nClt.Ex.19.Invoice,report,and photographs from Delta Electric,April 19,2022.  \nThree photographs of the hall bathroom during remodeling,taken in 2021.  \nClt.Ex.20.  \nClt.Ex.21.One photograph of the hall bathroom,taken May 2023.  \n2  \nClt.Ex.22.One photograph of the hall bathroom,taken in 2021.  \nClt.Ex.23.Three photographs of the hall bathroom,taken in 2021.  \nClt.Ex.24.Two photographs of the basement walls,taken in 2023.  \nClt.Ex.25.Five photographs of the basement stairs,taken in 2023.  \nClt.Ex.26.Estimate from Wellman General Contracting and Home Improvements,LLC,May 19,2022.  \nClt.Ex.27.Proposal from Optimum Construction,Inc.,July 21,2022.  \n","cbCaifaRwI2HkJyv","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifaRwI2HkJyv","pdf",761986,16,"English","# Proposed Decision\n## Statement of the Case\n## Issues\n## Summary of the Evidence\n## Proposed Findings of Fact\n## Discussion\n## Proposed Conclusions of Law\n## Recommended Order","[{\"question\":\"What claim was filed with the Maryland Home Improvement Commission Guaranty Fund?\",\"answer\":\"Cheryl McIntyre filed a claim seeking reimbursement for alleged actual losses related to a home improvement contract with Jose Pocasangre Martinez, trading as Sp2all LLC.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the main issues addressed in the proposed decision?\",\"answer\":\"The proposed decision considers whether the claimant sustained compensable actual loss due to the respondent’s acts or omissions, and if so, the amount of that compensable loss.\"},{\"question\":\"What evidence was presented during the hearing?\",\"answer\":\"The claimant introduced numerous exhibits including photographs, construction contract agreements and proposals, payment records, and text and email communications, while the respondent offered no exhibits and the fund presented no testimony.\"}]","Proposed Decision - Maryland Home Improvement Commission Guaranty Fund Claim | PDF"]