ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2006A-7100029-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-03-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 15, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant failed to appear. The Respondent failed to appear. The Registrar of Contractors appeared through Assistant Attorney General, Camila Alarcon. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

The following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This matter came on for Recovery Fund Eligibility/Payout Hearing on March 15, 2011. 2. The sole issue to be adjudicated was the threshold issue of whether the Complainant was eligible to access the Contractors’ Recovery Fund under A.R.S. § 32-1131 et seq. 3. On October 20, 2010, the Registrar of Contractors issued a Notice of Recovery Fund Claim Denial. 4. The Complainant disagreed with the Recovery Fund Claim Denial and requested an administrative hearing. 5. The Complainant failed to present any evidence at the hearing in support of his claim of eligibility set forth in the Recovery Fund Claim herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Complainant has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible to access the Contractors’ Recovery Fund under A.R.S. § 32-1131 et seq. See Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 437-38, 930 P.2d 508 (Ariz. App. 1996). 2. Proof by “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “more likely true than not.” In re Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648, 654 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). 3. Proof by preponderance of the evidence “is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (rev. 6th ed. 1990). 4. The Complainant, by the aforementioned default in appearance at the hearing for this matter, failed to sustain the required burden of proving his eligibility to access the Contractors’ Recovery Fund under A.R.S. § 32-1131 et seq., by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence and, consequently, the credible evidence of record does not support any findings that the Complainant is eligible to access the Contractors’ Recovery Fund under A.R.S. § 32-1131 et seq. RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Recovery Fund Claim Denial be affirmed and that this matter be dismissed. Done this day, March 15, 2011.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826