ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2017A-5731-LDA-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2018-04-02
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF:
Judd and Sons Construction, LLC,
PENDING LICENSE NO: 315567
No. 2017A-5731-LDA-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 13, 2018
APPEARANCES: Kevin Judd appeared on behalf of Judd and Sons Construction, LLC. Assistant Attorney John Tellier appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In 2002, the Registrar issued License No. 175378 to Judd and Sons Construction, LLC (“Judd and Sons”). See Exhibit 4.
2. On or about May 8, 2009, an Administrative Law Judge issued a decision recommending that License No. 175378 issued be revoked. See Exhibit 6.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Judd and Sons failed to fully rectify work deficiencies that were the subject of a complaint filed by Barrie Kay Dickerson (Ms. Dickerson”). See id.
3. On June 11, 2009, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) adopted the decision and revoked the license.
4. The Registrar had previously suspended Judd and Sons’s Class KB-02 license effective January 9, 2004 until Judd Sons provided proof of compliance with work orders issued by the Registrar in connection with the complaint filed by Ms. Dickerson. See id.
5. At the time that the license was revoked, Kevin Judd (“Mr. Judd”) was the qualifying party for Judd and Sons. Mr. Judd and Tanya Judd, (‘Ms. Judd”), were members of Judd and Sons.
6. Mr. Judd and Ms. Judd never disassociated from the revoked license. See Exhibit 4.
7. On or about August 24, 2017, Mr. Judd filed an application for a contractor’s license on behalf of Judd and Sons. The application named Mr. Judd as the qualifying party. Mr. Judd and Ms. Judd were members of Judd and Sons at the time that the application was filed. See Exhibit 2.
8. On or about October 6, 2017, the Registrar issued a notice denying the application because Mr. Judd and Ms. Judd were named on a revoked license. The Registrar also determined that Judd and Sons “failed to provide a proper showing that all loss caused by the Revoked License has been cured.” See Exhibit 1.
9. Judd and Sons filed a timely appeal to the denial.
10. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
11. A hearing was held on March 13, 2018.
12. At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of its Chief of Licensing, Brian Kirby, and submitted exhibits 1 through 6. Mr. Judd presented his own testimony.
13. Mr. Judd contended that he is not a crook or a liar and has been in the construction business for 20 years. Mr. Judd testified that he was led to believe that Ms. Dickerson had no issues with his construction work because she did not apply for a payout from the recovery fund.
14. Judd and Sons presented no evidence at the hearing that it corrected the deficiencies which served as the basis for the revocation.
15. The Registrar contended that the denial was proper because Mr. Judd and Ms. Judd were named on a revoked license and Judd and Sons had taken no steps to correct the deficiencies that led to the revocation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Applicant bears the burden of proof to establish that it meets statutory qualifications for a contractor’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(1); A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952).
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1122(C) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
To obtain or renew a license under this chapter, each person shall be of good character and reputation. Lack of good character and reputation may be established by showing that a person has engaged in contracting without a license or committed any act that, if committed or done by any licensed contractor, would be grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor's license or by showing that the person was named on a contractor's license that was suspended or revoked in another state.
5. Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A) provides, in relevant part,
as follows:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions:
. . . .
20. Having a person named on the license who is or was named on any other license in this state or in another state that is under suspension or revocation for any act or omission that occurs while the person is or was named on the license unless the prior revocation was based solely on a violation of this paragraph.
6. Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1161(C) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
After revocation of a license upon any of the grounds set forth in section 32-1154, the license shall not be renewed or reissued for one year after final determination of revocation and then only on proper showing that all loss caused by the act or omission for which the license was revoked has been fully satisfied.
7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Mr. Judd and Ms. Judd were named on a revoked license.
8. Judd and Sons failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that all loss caused by the revoked license has been fully satisfied.
9. Judd and Sons provided no legal authority to establish that Ms. Dickerson was required to apply for a payout from the recovery fund.
10. The Registrar has established that Judd and Sons lacks good character and reputation as required under Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1122(C).
11. The evidence of record supports the Registrar’s denial of Judd and Sons’s application for a contractor’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the October 6, 2017 denial of Judd and Sons Construction, LLC’s application for a contractor’s license be affirmed.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, April 2, 2018.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham, Director
Registrar of Contractors