ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2019A-02347-LDA-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2019-07-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 24, 2019 APPEARANCES: Kuan Jin, Respondent/Applicant; Chance Peterson, Esq. ROC Staff Attorney; Thomas Raine, Esq., AZ Asst. Atty. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Randolph D. Wolfson _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT On or about January 23, 2019, Applicant submitted a Qualifying Party Exemption Application to the Registrar [the “Application”].[1] On April 3, 2019, the Registrar issued its Notice of Denial of the Application for the asserted reason that license No. 283290 was suspended for non-renewal on March 1, 2015 through March 3, 2015. Upon Respondent’s appeal of the Registrar’s Denial of the Application, a Hearing before the Office of Administrate Hearings, an agency independent from the Registrar, was Noticed and conducted on June 24, 2019. Chance Peterson, Esq., staff attorney for the Registrar testified that as reflected by the Registrar’s computerized license database, Respondent’s renewal fees were filed with the Registrar on March 3, 2015.[2] Further, he testified that the Respondent’s licenses were suspended for non-renewal March 1, 2015 through March 3, 2015. He testified that the Respondent’s Application was filed January 23, 2019.[3] He testified that Respondent is not eligible to submit another application until March 3, 2020. Applicant/Respondent, Kuan Jin, testified at the hearing that he accepts that the license renewal for ROC 283290, 294729, 286869 were late filed on March 3, 2015 and that he was aware that the Contractors License for Ace Home Services LLC, ROC License: ROC 283290, 294729, 286869 had been suspended for non-renewal on March 1, 2015 through March 3, 2015. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof. The Applicant/Respondent has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119. 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). 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."). “Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B). A.R.S. § 32-1125 (C)[4] allows an applicant to submit an application for a qualifying party exemption. But also required is that the applicant show to the satisfaction of the Registrar that the license has been in effect during the five years prior to the application.[5] A licensee cannot qualify for a qualifying party exemption it at any time during the five years prior to the allocation the license was inactive or suspended.[6] Respondent is not eligible to submit another application for a Qualifying Party Exemption Application until March 3, 2020. By a preponderance of the evidence, Applicant/Respondent failed to show that the Licenses in question in this case have been in effect during the past five years. The Respondent’s appeal should be declined. The April 3, 2019, the Registrar Notice of Denial of the Application should be affirmed. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED the Respondent/Applicant’s appeal should be denied. FURTHER IT IS RECOMMENDED that the April 3, 2019, Registrar Notice of Denial of the Application should be affirmed. FURTHER IT IS RECOMMENDED that Ace Home Services LLC, ROC License: ROC 283290, 294729, 286869 be directed to appoint a Qualified Party in a timely manner.

Done this day, July 13, 2019.

/s/Randolph D. Wolfson Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Administrative Judicial Notice is taken of the entirety of the Registrar’s physical and electronic records in this matter, including, but not limited to information displayed on the Registrar’s Public Access Website. [2] State’s Exhibit 3, bate stamp #0018. [3] State’s Exhibit 2. [4]A.R.S § 32-1125. Renewal of license; qualifying party: C. 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. 2. A transfer of ownership of fifty per cent or more of the stock, if applicable, or beneficial interest, in the licensee has not occurred. 3. No more than five valid complaints which have not been resolved by the licensee, as determined by the registrar, have been filed against the licensee. [emphasis added].

[5] In its Exhibit 1, GROUNDS FOR DENIAL, paragraph 1, .Counsel for the registrar submits that “The Registrar has determined that a license is ''in effect'' if a contractor can lawfully engage in contracting under that license. A contractor cannot lawfully engage in contracting with an inactive license (the license must first be activated) or with a suspended license.” [6] Footnote 4, A.R.S § 32-1125, supra.

-----------------------

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