Saturday, March 8, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.
Herb and Merle Roth thought they had done everything humanly possible to ensure they were dealing with a licensed contractor, but the odds were against them.
The retired couple's architect had suggested six contractors to build their family-room addition, and gave them bid forms to send out. All six filled out and returned the statements, listing their qualifications, contractor's license number and fee.
Being a retired military man and a stickler for details all his life, Herb Roth called the state Contractors Board in mid-March 1996 to make sure he was dealing with licensed contractors.
He was told all were licensed.
The Roths decided not to go with the highest or the lowest bid, but one in the middle. They chose Larry Jaggars, owner of JWD Inc., 4616 W. Sahara Ave. No. 105, who signed his bid April 22.
The couple and Jaggars formerly signed a contract May 7.
Roth said he encountered problems with Jaggars' work soon after the project began. Workers would come in for a couple of hours and leave by noon, he said. Windows had been installed below the door frame. French doors on the top sun deck were too short.
"You could never get the guy to show up and do anything," said Michael Pipkins, the residential designer of the project. "He (Jaggars) didn't bolt down the shear walls (that keep the building from swaying). He had notched the ceiling joists (rafters) halfway through, and they could have broken. Everything was pretty bad."
Delays common
As per the contract, the project was to be completed by June 30. Frustrated -- and bolting down the shear walls himself -- Roth allowed Jaggars more time to finish, while maintaining a daily vigil on the project.
But when the insulation failed a building code inspection Aug. 13, Roth decided he had had enough and fired Jaggars. He called the Contractors Board to complain, and was told that Jaggars' license had expired March 31.
Roth learned that for three months, from the time he had accepted Jaggars' bid and signed his contract, he had been dealing with an unlicensed contractor.
Roth was furious with the Contractors Board for not informing him that Jaggars' license had expired, Jaggars for not telling him he was unlicensed when he signed the bid and contract and the state of Nevada for allowing these illegal activities to take place.
"Crime does pay here in Nevada because the laws are so lax," Roth, 67, said in frustration. "They don't even want to enforce the lax laws they have. (It's illegal to engage in business in Nevada without a contractor's license.)
"If I knew I could scam thousands of dollars and only pay a $500 fine (for not having a license), you'd do it, too. Why should Jaggars profit from a criminal act, the lies and deceit?"
No license reported
On Sept. 11, the Contractors Board's senior criminal investigator, Carmen Caruso, in a letter officially informed the Roths that Jaggars was unlicensed. He also sent them a "criminal complaint form" to fill out.
In the letter, Caruso wrote: "Upon receipt of the enclosed form, this office will investigate the problem to determine if the matter warrants presentation to the district attorney or attorney general. ..."
After receiving Caruso's letter earlier in the month, Roth was shocked to hear that the Contractors Board renewed Jaggars contractor's license on Sept. 23, 1996.
"How can the Contractors Board re-license him?" Roth asked. "No one gives a damn. There's a bench warrant out on him, and no one cares."
On Dec. 4, Caruso informed the Roths by letter that his investigation had been completed and submitted to the Clark County district attorney's office.
Jaggars was to appear in court Feb. 6 but didn't show up. According to Deputy District Attorney Tammy Peterson, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.
Laying blame
The contractor said last week that he wasn't aware that there was a bench warrant out. He also said someone at the Contractors Board told him he could finish the project, even though he wasn't licensed when he signed the contract. He declined to say who gave him that authority.
According to David Reese, attorney for the Contractors Board, Jaggars' license technically wasn't dead. It had been suspended, and he had six months to get it renewed and pay a late fee.
However, during this suspension, Reese said Jaggars should not have made bids or contracted for business.
Jaggars blames the Roths for delays on the project. He points out that everything passed, except the insulation, and said the window alignments were the designer's fault.
"What we got here is a situation of an old couple who spent a lot of time saying they were nervous about contractors," Jaggars said. "I bent over backwards and spent a lot of time explaining things to them.
"He (Roth) did not want me to do the whole project. Mr. Roth did not want me to do the flooring or interior."
Which is why Jaggars said Roth is listed on the building permit as the contractor and not him.
The building permit lists the contractor as (home) "owner." However, the telephone number written on the permit is Jaggars'.
Roth contacted the building department and was shocked to learn that he was listed as the "owner-contractor." He also discovered a handwritten note stating, "Mr. Jaggars will act as my agent in the matter of constructing my room addition."
The note was signed by him and Jaggars and notarized by notary public Maurianne Berkowitz. Roth said his signature on the note is a forgery.
Pulling out the last page of his contract with Jaggars, Roth contends the signatures are identical with the ones on the note, suggesting that the page was copied. But the note has second signatures above Roth's and Jaggars'.
Roth said the second signature above his signature is a forgery.
Jaggars denies this and claims that Roth knew he was listed as the owner-contractor.
Notarization foggy
The notary in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Kateri Cavin said that she had notarized only Jaggars' signature.
Berkowitz wrote, in part: "As a notary public, I realize the importance of witnessing a signature and would not have notarized an unverifiable signature. I would then have to conclude that the other signature (Roth's) and statement at the top of the page in question was added later and used as an addendum. ..."
When asked about the contract agreement between Roth and Jaggars, Kay Barber, executive officer of the Contractors Board, said it was illegal and not valid.
When asked about Jaggars' bid, Barber said it was on an American Institute of Architects questionnaire and even though Jaggars listed himself as being licensed on it, it was not an official Contractors Board form.
With regard to the May 7 contract, Barber said that Jaggars never portrayed himself as being licensed by listing his expired license number on it, even though he had previously done so on the bid questionnaire.
Renewal granted
Barber would not comment on whether the Contractors Board considered, for the license renewal process, that Jaggars never told Roth his license was suspended when he submitted his bid and signed the contract.
"If there is an allegation, we can't deny until it is proven," Barber said.
But she and investigator Caruso, in his letter to Roth, confirm their knowledge of Jaggars being unlicensed when he entered into a contract with Roth.
The Contractors Board nevertheless renewed Jaggars' license Sept. 23.
Reese said this probably happened because the Contractors Board members and their investigative arm didn't communicate about the investigation. Also, when the board received the Roths' complaint in October, the license had already been renewed and there was no mechanism to inform the board.
"The board obviously did not know of the complaint at the time the renewal came before them on Sept. 23," Reese said. "The application could have been tabled. There was no communication."
Barber said the Contractors Board, with regard to renewing licenses, only considers whether the contractor has SIIS insurance, the officers in the company are the same, the qualifier (person with the experience) is the same, and if the renewal application is signed.
As an afterthought, Barber said Roth should have asked to see Jaggars' license pocket card. This card lists a contractor's name, the name of the company and license expiration date.
"I called the Contractors Board to see if he was licensed," Roth said. "He showed me his business card with his license number on. Whoever heard of a license pocket card? No one at the Contractors Board told me about one."
Money outstanding
Roth said he did meet with Jaggars at a Burger King restaurant on Aug. 29 after he fired him. He had paid the contractor $16,425 and wanted $6,500 back to cover repairs to correct his work and for the supervision fee that Roth felt Jaggars didn't earn.
Jaggars countered by stating that Roth still owed him another $3,800 on the contract.
The two men left without reaching an agreement.
"Here is a couple of people who use the ploy of being old and helpless individuals, and they are scamming me out of $4,000," Jaggars said.
But Roth held a completely different view of his dealings with Jaggars and any future associations with contractors in Southern Nevada.
"People should not be able to profit from committing criminal acts. He was unlicensed," Roth said. "If contractors get a slap on the wrist, they will just go out and make more money."
Kateri Cavin, deputy attorney general, said notary Maurianne Berkowitz was fined recently over the building permit note. Jaggars had failed to sign her notary book before leaving her office.
Kay Barber suggests in part that anyone about to hire a contractor or subcontractor take these precautions to prevent problems:
* Call the Contractors Board to make sure the contractor or subcontractor is licensed.
* Obtain at least three bids, and don't automatically accept the lowest one.
* Put any and all agreements in writing.
* Ask to see a license pocket card.
archive
