FINACT2018A-4134-LDA-ROC.pdf

2018A-4134-LDA-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2018-12-11

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Arizona Registrar of Contractors, Case No. 2018-4134 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2018A-4134-LDA-ROC v. FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION Poor Boys General Remodeling Inc., AND ORDER APPLICANT.

Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(B), the Registrar may review and accept, modify, or reject an administrative law judge’s written decision. If the Registrar modifies or rejects that decision, then the Registrar must provide written justification setting forth the reasons for the modification or rejection. REGISTRAR’S ACCEPTANCE In this case, a hearing was held, and the administrative law judge issued a written decision. See Administrative Law Judge Decision, attached. The Registrar reviewed that decision and hereby accepts it. CONCLUSION Because the Registrar has accepted the administrative law judge’s decision, that decision is the final administrative decision in this case and becomes effective on January 15, 2019. Dated December 6, 2018. Registrar of Contractors /s/ Joseph Citelli Joseph Citelli Chief Counsel Chief of Legal Department and Recovery Fund

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail December 6, 2018 to: Applicant Poor Boys General Remodeling Inc 8148 W Cherry Ann Ln Payson, AZ 85541 AND copy electronically mailed this same date to: Applicant’s email address on record with the Registrar Registrar’s Counsel Thomas Raine, Assistant Attorney General

Office of Administrative Hearings Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge Case No. 2018-4134 / AN

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St. Suite 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 1-877-692-9762 RECEIVED 11.15.2018 ROC LEGAL

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Registrar of Contractors, No. 2018A-4134-LDA-ROC

v. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION Poor Boys General Remodeling, Inc.,

Applicant

HEARING: October 26, 2018 APPEARANCES: Joanne Cobb for the Applicant; Thomas Raine, Esq. for the Registrar of Contractors ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On September 7, 2018, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a NOTICE OF HEARING setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on October 26, 2018 at the Office of Administrative Hearing. 2. Respondent Poor Boys General Remodeling, Inc., holds license No. 211347 issued by ROC. 3. On July 10, 2018, Poor Boys submitted to ROC an Application for Exemption from Qualifying Party Requirements. 4. Through a Notice of Qualifying Party Exemption Denial dated August 1, 2018, ROC denied Poor Boys’ request. 5. Poor Boys requested a hearing, which led to this matter being scheduled. 6. Among the requirements for a qualifying party exemption is a showing that the contractor’s license has been “in effect” for the prior five years. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-1125(C)(1). 7. ROC interprets “in effect” to mean that the contractor is able to contract. 8. Poor Boys’ license was suspended for non-renewal from October 1 through October 6, 2015.

Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 RECEIVED 11.15.2018 ROC LEGAL

9. Poor Boys does not dispute that its license was suspended during this time, but it takes the position that either ROC or the Postal Service lost its renewal application, which it asserts was mailed on September 11, 2015.

10. ROC investigated Poor Boys’ assertion that it (ROC) may have failed to

properly process Poor Boys’ renewal application in 2015, but if found no information in

its records to support a finding that this was the case.

11. ROC’s records show that Poor Boys’ license was renewed on October 6,

2015, at which time it paid the requisite fees and a Renewal Penalty of $50 for its

failure to timely renew the license.

12. In 2015, Poor Boys did not raise with ROC any argument that the

suspension was improper or unwarranted.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Complainant bears the burden of persuasion. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-

1092.07(G)(1). 2. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119. 3. A preponderance of the evidence is: The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014). 4. Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes."). 5. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-211(B).

RECEIVED 11.15.2018 ROC LEGAL

6. “A licensee may make written application to the registrar for exemption from a qualifying party. The applicant shall show to the satisfaction of the registrar that during the past five years: 1. The license has been in effect….” ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-

1125(C).

7. ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-1154(A) provides that: “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: …. 17. Contracting or offering to contract or submitting a

bid while the license is under suspension or while the license is on inactive status.”

8. As pertinent to this matter, Ariz. REV. STAT. section 32-1151 provides that

it is unlawful for any corporation to act in the capacity of a contractor without having a

contractor's license in good standing.

9. Poor Boys’ license was not in effect during the time the license was

suspended because Poor Boys was not able to contract during that time. Poor Boys

has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it meets the requirements for a

qualifying party exemption under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-1125(C).

RECOMMENDED ORDER IT IS RECOMMENDED that Poor Boys General Remodeling, Inc.’s appeal be denied. 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 is forty days after the date of that certification.

Done this day, November 14, 2018. /s/ Thomas Shedden Thomas Shedden Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to: Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors

RECEIVED 11.15.2018 ROC LEGAL