ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2019A-06376-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2020-05-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Arizona Registrar of Contractors,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Image Home Improvement Inc.,

License Nos. ROC 313587, ROC 182234,

RESPONDENT.

And

David Carson Brinkley,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Image Home Improvement Inc.,

License Nos. ROC 313587, ROC 182234,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2019A-06376-ROC

No. 2019A-02986-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 29, 2020 and April 30, 2020.

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General John Teller appeared on behalf of the Complainant Arizona Registrar of Contractors. David Williams, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent Image Home Improvement, Inc.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

FINDINGS OF FACT

On January 7, 2020, the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) issued an Order of Summary Suspension, Order Consolidating Cases, and Notice of Promptly Instituted Proceeding (Order) setting the above-captioned matter for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on January 24, 2020 at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the Order, the Registrar presented its determination that the public welfare imperatively required emergency action and it summarily suspended Image’s license. Citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.11(B).

Image holds license numbers182234 and 313587, both issued by Registrar.

On January 16, 2020, the Registrar also issued a Supplemental Notice to clarify and detail the specific charges against Image.

The Supplemental Notice provided a Statement of Facts and a Formal Statement of Alleged Violations in which Registrar alleged that Image had committed two violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1), four violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), seven violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(9), four violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22), two violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(12), two violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1158(B), and one violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1124(B).

The Registrar is requesting that Image’s license be revoked.

From June of 2019 to December of 2019, the Registrar received eight complaints against Image. These eight matters were consolidated into this single proceeding.

Because of this public safety issue and to protect the public welfare by eliminating the risk that other consumers would enter contracts with Image, the Registrar issued its Order summarily suspending Image’s license. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Registrar was justified in issuing the summary suspension.

A hearing was held on April 29, 2020 and April 30, 2020.

The Registrar presented the testimony of Linda Brazeale, Franklin Elijah Crabtree, Matthew Klemish, and William Smith. Image presented the testimony of Stephen Deubel, Dan Haydon, Rainbow Wieland, and Rick Stevens.

Respondent Image Home Improvement, Inc. (Image) holds License

No. 182234, a General Commercial contractor’s license, issued on January 29, 2003. See Exhibit 1.

Image holds License No. 313587, a General Residential contractor’s license, issued on May 12, 2017. See Exhibit 2 to Order of Summary Suspension.

Stephen A. Deubel is the sole owner and qualifying party for Image.

Franklin Elijah Crabtree is the sole member of Crabtree Design House LLC, DBA: Design House (Design House).

Design House does not hold an Arizona contractor’s license.

Crabtree is not named on any current contractor’s licenses.

Crabtree was a member of Cabinets of Crabtree LLC, which held License No. ROC 219488.

The Registrar revoked License No. ROC 219488 on March 27, 2013, Case No. 2011-2433.

Image entered into a written “Employment Agreement” (“Agreement”) with Crabtree, which Agreement is dated January 1, 2018. See Exhibit 8. The Agreement authorized Crabtree to operate under Image’s business name and license. See Id.

In an affidavit included with Image’s Answer in ROC Case No. 2019-02986, Crabtree stated: “I am an employee/consultant for Image Home Improvement, Inc. for the Brinkley Project....”

Image prepared business cards for Crabtree, displaying Image’s logo and ROC license numbers. See Exhibits 27 and 77.

Image also prepared letterhead containing the logos of both Image and Design House, with Image’s license number, and Design House’s contact information. See Exhibit 20.

Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Crabtree entered into contracts on behalf of Image with at least eight separate homeowners, totaling over $950,000.00. The invoices specified that labor was to be paid to “Image Home Improvements ROC #313587.” No other contractor’s license numbers or names appeared on the invoices.

The eight consolidated complainants paid a total of over $659,744 to Image and various unlicensed persons and entities, including Design House, Crabtree Design House, Elijah Crabtree, White, and Custom Soft Group.

In addition to aiding and abetting Crabtree, Image also aided and abetted employees of Design House and other unlicensed individuals, including Linda Brazeale and White J. White, to evade the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat Title 32, Chapter 10, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A)(9).

Linda Brazeale was a partner with Crabtree in the operation of Design House, an unlicensed entity. The complaints filed against Image indicate that

Ms. Brazeale assisted in the contracting work performed by Image, primarily by coordinating and scheduling the work to be done by Crabtree, Mr. Deubel, and others.

White J. White is a Director and Officer of Custom Soft Group Inc.

See Exhibit 43.

Custom Soft Group Inc. does not hold an Arizona contractor’s license.

Mr. White is not associated with any current contractor’s licenses.

In an affidavit included with Image’s Answer in ROC Case No. 2019-02986, dated September 26, 2019, Mr. White stated: “I am an employee of Image Home Improvement, Inc. by contract with Mr. Steve Deubel for his firm....” See Exhibit 46.

Mr. White and Custom Soft Group Inc. received payments directly from at least one complainant who contracted with Image/Design House. Shelbi Jo Figueroa paid $2,500 to Custom Soft Group for “electrical remodel” on May 6, 2019, and $2,500 to Mr. White for “electrical work” on May 14, 2019. Case No. 2019-05780. See Exhibits 40-42.

The Registrar previously received three unlicensed complaints against Mr. White: Complaint Nos. 2018-04863, 2018-05666, and 2019-02508.

The Registrar referred Complaint No. 2018-04863 for prosecution, resulting in Mr. White pleading guilty with a suspended sentence for Attempted Contracting Without a License in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1164(A)(2). The court further ordered Mr. White to pay restitution of $18,008.79. Scottsdale City Court Case No. CR2019-000641. See Exhibit 45.

Complaint No. 2018-05666 has been referred for prosecution. The Registrar is not aware of any charges brought to date.

Complaint No. 2019-02508 was referred for prosecution, resulting in Mr. White pleading guilty to Contracting Without a License in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT § 32-1164(A)(2).

On or about June 4, 2019, the Registrar received a complaint from David Brinkley (Brinkley Complaint) against Image’s License No. 313587, alleging abandonment. See Exhibit 12.

On or about November 13, 2018, Mr. Brinkley entered into a contract with Image and Design House for a residential remodel at 10417 N. 43rd Place, Phoenix, AZ 85028, for a total price of $223,933.23. See Exhibit 12.

The contract is evidenced by an invoice dated November 9, 2018. This invoice contains the logo and contact information for Design House, and specifies that “Labor payable to Image Home Improvement ROC# 313587.” See Exhibit 5.

On November 9, 2018, Stephen Deubel, as Owner of Image Home Improvement Inc., signed a Contractor’s Waiver of Lien for the amount of $223,933.23. See Exhibit 7.

The Brinkleys paid a total of $181,966.62, all of which was paid through escrowed funds to Design House between September 26, 2018 and April 15, 2019.

The Brinkleys were provided two “Projected Construction Timelines” for March and May 2019. The timelines contained the logos of both Image and Design House. See Exhibit 10.

Mr. Deubel also emailed the Brinkleys a “Final Construction Timeline” dated July 14, 2019. This timeline contained the logos of both Image and Design House, and a signature line for Mr. Deubel. See Exhibit 11.

On July 2, 2019, Registrar Investigator Steve Klein conducted a jobsite inspection, attended by Mr. Deubel. See Exhibit 13.

Investigator Klein determined that Image performed poor work in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108. Id.

On August 8, 2019, the Registrar issued a Directive, ordering Image to remedy the violations by August 30, 2019, and informing Image that its failure to comply with the Directive would constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT § 32-1154(A)(22). See Exhibit 14.

On September 11, 2019, Investigator Klein conducted a Compliance Inspection.

Image did not make the required corrections by the due date listed in the Directive.

On September 12, 2019, the Registrar issued a Citation to Image, alleging violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and (22). See Exhibit 16.

On September 13, 2019, the Registrar received a Complaint submitted by Matthew Paul Klemish against Image’s License No. 313587, alleging poor work and extended delays. See Exhibit 17.

According to the Complaint and supporting documentation, on November 3, 2018, Mr. Klemish entered into a contract with Image and Design House for a residential remodel at 4045 E. Hazelwood St., Phoenix, AZ 85018, for a total price of $192,401.21. See Exhibit 17.

The contract is evidenced by an invoice dated November 3, 2018. The invoice contains the logo and contact information for Design House, and specifies that “Labor installments are paid to Image Home Improvements ROC # 313587.” See Exhibit 18.

On November 3, 2018, Mr. Klemish paid $10,000 to Image; $25,000 to Design House; and $61,200 to Crabtree Design House. See Exhibit 72.

On May 30, 2019, Mr. Klemish paid a further $10,000 to Image, and $38,100 to Design House. See Exhibit 72.

On August 15, 2019, Mr. Deubel emailed the Klemishes with a proposed timeline for completion of the project. See Exhibit 72.

On September 26, 2019, Mr. Klemish submitted an addendum to the Complaint.

On October 18, 2019, Registrar Investigator Randal Morris conducted a jobsite inspection. Image was represented by Mr. Deubel, and Design House was represented by Linda Brazeale. See Exhibit 21.

Investigator Morris determined that Image had abandoned the project, in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT § 32-1154(A)(1). Id.

On November 6, 2019, the Registrar issued a Directive, ordering Image to remedy the violations by November 22, 2019, and informing Image that its failure to comply with the Directive would constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT § 32-1154(A)(22). See Exhibit 22.

On December 4, 2019, Investigator Morris conducted a Compliance Inspection.

Image did not attend. See Exhibit 24.

On December 9, 2019, the Registrar issued a Citation to Image, alleging violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT §§ 32-1154(A)(1), (3), (12), and (22). See Exhibit 16.

The Registrar received four additional complaints against Image from June through December of 2019: Complaint 2019-05504 filed by Kelley Johanna Bass (Bass Complaint); Complaint 2019-05780 filed by Shelbi Jo Figueroa (Figueroa Complaint); Complaint 2019-06119 filed by Lawrence Lenahan (Lenahan Complaint); Complaint 2019-06363 filed by Eric Betancourt (Betancourt Complaint).

The Registrar received a complaint from Mr. William Smith against Image. However, the complaint was later withdrawn due to a settlement.

The Registrar received Complaint 2019-06186 against Image from Joe Streckfuss for nonpayment for labor and or services provided. filed by Joe Streckfuss Plumbing LLC.

Image did not contend that Streckfuss was not owed money. Image contended that it did not authorize the underlying contract and therefore did not owe money to Streckfuss.

The Registrar assigned investigators to investigate the complaints and issued Directives under the four additional complaints requiring that Image correct the items listed therein, based upon the investigators’’ findings. The Registrar issued a Citation against Image’s license based upon the complaints after concluding that Image failed to comply with the Directives.

At hearing, the parties agreed with the findings of the investigators regarding those complaints that poor work was performed under the contracts and that the work was not appropriately corrected. However, Image contended that it did not enter into any of the agreements that were the subject of those complaints and did not perform or authorize the contracts or the poor work. Therefore, Image contended that it was not required to correct the work not comply with the Directives.

Testimony of Linda Brazeale

Linda Brazeale operated a showroom in Scottsdale Quarter called Creative Kitchen Studio. Elijah Crabtree supplied cabinetry for the showroom. Brazeale renamed the showroom Design House and became a partner with Crabtree who owned Design House.

Deubel met Crabtree through a business partner.

Deubel authorized Brazeale and Crabtree to enter into contracts on behalf of Image and Design House. Brazeale created the contracts.

Brazeale was paid on projects if she sold cabinetry or caused a client come into the showroom.

Brazeale would tell Crabtree the customer’s vision and Crabtree would draw the plans.

Brazeale met Crabtree after he and David James were looking for a cabinet manufacturer. Crabtree’s employee was a friend of David James.

Deubel was aware of the bidding for the contracts between Design House, Image and other customers. Deubel would be responsible for perform the labor under the contracts.

Deubel brought in business cards with Design House and Image’s name on them to obtain customers from the showroom.

Brazeale talked to Deubel three to six times a day regarding ongoing jobs and tasks that needed to be completed.

Brazeale met with Eckley (an attorney), Deubel, and Crabtree to discuss the Brinkleys contract. Eckley stated that the relationship between Deubel and Crabtree was not completed properly. Eckley said that Crabtree and White had to become employees of Image because the Registrar would not support the current business relationship. Eckley told her that she was not required to become a member of Image. Brazeale received an email from Deubel asking her to create and backdate am employee agreement with Crabtree.

Deubel asked Brazeale to write up an employee agreement and send it to Eckley.

On July 22, 2019, Deubel sent an electronic mail message to Crabtree and attached an employee agreement for Crabtree’s signature.

The July 22, 2019 e-mail provided in relevant part, as follows:

Frank, attached is the version for you and all your employees that we do business together so that we are covered with the ROC. Please make sure the initial date should be 1/1/2018 []

Please call me if you have any questions,

Thanks

Brazeale asserted that it was not possible that Deubel was unaware of the Design House jobs. Deubel received money for allowing Crabtree and Design House to operate under Image’s license.

Brazeale explained that Image had the same relationship with White as it had with Crabtree. White ran the project.

Brazeale testified to the effect that there were false statements in October 25, 2019 Cease and Desist Letter issued to her and Crabtree by Eckley. Brazeale was not an employee of Image for a short period of time on the Brinkley project.

Testimony of Frank Elijah Crabtree

Frank Elijah Crabtree has worked with Deubel since approximately 2008 completing construction contracts. Crabtree appeared on a television and radio show with Deubel around the year of 2008. Crabtree and Deubel began doing business together after the first season of the television show. Crabtree completed the wood work and cabinetry.

Crabtree previously held a contractor’s license which was revoked in 2013. Crabtree stated that the business could not pay its bills after the 2008 recession. Crabtree asserted that Deubel knew that he lost his license when it occurred.

Crabtree has owned Design House since about 2017. Design House had a relationship with Deubel. Deubel was aware of all of his contracts which provided that Image would be responsible for labor. Crabtree would call Deubel every week to tell him about upcoming projects. Deubel obtained the permits for the projects. Deubel received work on his own and also through Design House.

Crabtree participated in the meeting with Deubel, Brazeale, and Eckley. Crabtree explained that Eckley stated that the nature of the business between Crabtree and Deubel was wrong. At the time Crabtree met with Eckley, Crabtree believed that Eckley was his lawyer.

Eckley told Crabtree and White that they needed to be employees along with some of his employees like the door installers. Deubel knew that Crabtree had an installation crew.

Crabtree has heard Deubel tell people that he, Crabtree, was his partner. Deubel used phrases such as “Sales”, “Head of Design”, and “Management”. Design House was the sales arm of the company.

Crabtree was never employed by Deubel or Image. Crabtree never received pay checks from Image. Crabtree received a 1099 from Image.

It was not until Crabtree’s meeting with Eckley that he learned that he needed to be an employee of Image. Crabtree never had an hourly agreement with Image or Deubel. Crabtree did not receive a paycheck from Image or a W-2.

Every contract that Crabtree and Image entered into contained the language, “Labor installments paid to Image Home Improvement.” Every contract provided Image’s ROC license number. Crabtree explained that every contract contained the language because Image made money off of each deal.

Shortly after the meeting, Crabtree called Deubel after receiving a letter from Eckley which provided that Crabtree was required to cease business with Image. See Exhibit 69. Crabtree referred to money going “back and forth” and stated “we’ve been doing this for years.” Deubel responded, “I know.” Deubel also stated, “We need to move past all this stuff.” See id. Deubel also stated that “Linda’s agreement” would “cover them.”

After the customer paid Image, Crabtree would give Deubel his money and Deubel would take what he wants. Crabtree would then begin to pay for the project. Many times Image would owe Crabtree. At times, Crabtree wrote checks to Image.

The Klemishes wrote out a check to Image. See Exhbiit 18, ROC 0107. Crabtree gave the check to Deubel.

Deubel introduced White to Crabtree.

Crabtree explained that in the Brinkley deal, Brinkley paid $20,000. Crabtree stated that he let Deubel tell him and Linda where the money should go.

Crabtree explained that Deubel and Brazeale went to the bank and Crabtree would take his portion and deposit it in his account.

Crabtree would perform the cabinetry work and most times Image would owe him money. Sometime, Crabtree wrote checks to Image.

Crabtree’s wife was the qualifying party for the company that was previously licensed by the ROC.

Crabtree denied that Deubel didn’t authorize him to do business for Image.

Crabtree explained that when customers pay him for construction projects, he must pay suppliers, my materials, and pay subs. Crabtree explained that Deubel knew about the Brinkley project from its inception.

Testimony of Stephen Deubel

Deubel has a general remodeling contractor’s license. Deubel has known Crabtree for several years. Deubel stated that Crabtree referent clients to him and he referred clients to Crabtree. Deubel stated that he first learned of the contract with the Brinkleys in May 2019 after Ms. Brinkley complained about the construction work. Deubel stated that he employed Crabtree after he learned of the estimate which provided that Image would perform labor.

Deubel stated that he hired Crabtree after he met with Eckley who suggested that he make Crabtree an employee. However, Deubel did not determine how much Crabtree would be paid by the hour. No paychecks were issued to Brazeale or Crabtree, or W-2s.

Deubel testified that the bank required that he backdate the lien waiver in Exhibit 7 for the Brinkley project to November of 2018. Although the signature date was November of 2018, Deubel testified that he did not sign it until 2019.

I do not find Deubel’s testimony regarding the date that he signed the lien waiver to be credible.

On September 27, 2019, Deubel signed a declaration under penalty of perjury, that the statements made in his answer to the citation were true and correct. The statements contained in the declaration included:

The Brinkleys and Image signed the original contract.

Complainant received an estimate on September 7, 2018 by Image.

Complainant gave Image $10,000 to initiate the project.

At hearing, Deubel testified that the statements (a) and (c) were not true, despite his signature. Deubel stated statement (b) was based on information provided to him by Crabtree.

Deubel testified that he gave 1,000 business cards to Crabtree in July of 2018 because Crabtree was a design consultant. Deubel testified that Eckley advised him to backdate the employee agreement.

Deubel admitted that White ran crews on his jobs. Deubel stated that he agreed to pay an hourly amount but never followed through with such agreement. Deubel testified that he never gave White a W-2. Later in his testimony, Deubel stated that White was not running crews but that he performed work with others like drywall, painting, and framing.

Deubel admitted that he wrote White a check in March but that White did not tell him that his license was suspended. See Exhibit 76. Deubel also stated that check reflected on Exhibit 76, ROC 0407 was a reimbursement to White. Deubel admitted that Custom Soft was a subcontractor of Image. Deubel stated that the check reflected in Exhibit 76, ROC 0431 was paid to White for framing and not concrete.

Deubel states that he wrote the check reflected in Exhibit 76, Bates 0436 to White because concrete was poured without his permission or knowledge.

Regarding the Figueroa project, Deubel stated that Image was not involved at all in that project.

Deubel explained that he billed Design House for the Brinkley project because Image needed to be paid for its work.

Deubel explained that Crabtree wrote checks to Image that are reflected in Exhibit 71 because Crabtree asked Image to perform construction work on a project. See Exhibit 71.

Deubel stated that he only knew that Design House did design work. Deubel claims that he paid Design House for its design not for installation. Deubel states that he never gave Crabtree authority to enter into contracts with customers on behalf of image.

Deubel alleged that he did not create the contract in See Exhibit 5. Deubel stated that he uses the contract in See Exhibit V. Deubel asserted that the contract in Exhibit V complies with the Registrar guidelines.

Deubel had a conversation with a worker named Carlos Rios who stated that Crabtree was involved in a scam. See Exhibit PP. Deubel opined that Carlos was referring to Crabtree placing Image’s information on its contracts.

Deubel stated that it was not his intention to hire an unlicensed contractor when he hired White. Deubel stated that he believed that he, not White, would be responsible for the work.

Deubel admitted that his lawyer told him that it was illegal to hire an unlicensed contractor.

Deubel denied telling Investigator Morris that Design House and/or Crabtree was his or Image’s sales arm.

Testimony of Matthew Klemish

Matthew Klemish entered into a construction contract with Image. Klemish filed a complaint with the Registrar after Image failed to perform work that met minimum workmanship standards. When Klemish paid for the project, before he wrote out the check, Crabtree that he needed to make a call first to find out how to make out the check. Klemish testified to the effect that he believed that Crabtree then called Deubel who told Crabtree to have Klemish pay $10,000 made out to Image. It was Klemish’s understanding that Image would perform the labor.

Klemish did not speak with Deubel until January of 2019. Klemish described it as a brief interaction and that Deubel was present observing the demolition. Deubel seemed to disappear and for the remainder of the project and mostly interacted with White and Crabtree. Klemish stated that White had a couple of people working for him.

Klemish stated that Deubel said that Crabtree was his employee at the jobsite inspection which occurred after he filed his complaint with the Registrar.

Around the time that Klemish signed the estimate, Crabtree gave Klemish a business card. Klemish stated that Crabtree was a cabinet maker and Image could perform the entire job. Klemish searched for Image on the Registrar website and confirmed that the ROC # matched the invoice and also noticed that image had zero claims and resolutions.

Klemish explained that Design House had a facility in Scottsdale quarter and was reputable. Klemish understood that he was entering into an agreement with Image DBA Design House. Klemish believed that the website said Image DBA as Design House.

Testimony of William Smith

Smith testified that when he agreed with Design House to do work on his home, his understanding was that Image would do the labor. Brazeale was the designer. When he filed his complaint with the Registrar, he did not mention Deubel because he wrote the statement based on what the Registrar stated hey needed in his filing. Crabtree gave his wife a business card with Image’s information on it.

Testimony of Dan Haydon

Dan Hampton has been conducting inspections since 1995. Mr. Haydon is a licensed inspector in Arizona. Hampton hosted a radio show with Deubel and stated that Deubel was a good man. Hampton stated that he did not know Design House to be an arm of Image, but provides referrals for Image. Hampton was not aware that there were business cards bearing the name of Image and Design House until a few days before the hearing.

Rainbow Wieland

Weiland has been an interior designer for twenty years. Weiland has worked with Deubel since 2016. Weiland talks to Deubel regularly since 2016 about kitchen designs and homes. Deubel helps Wieland with her nonprofit organization. Weiland solicits bids for kitchen remodels. Weiland stated that she has never received one complaint bout Deubel. Weiland has referred 15 to 20 clients to Deubel and she has never received any negative feedback. Weiland states that she knows Crabtree has had experience with Crabtree bidding too high. Weiland stated that she lost a job because Crabtree bid too high.

Wieland explained that Deubel never told her that Design House was a sales arm for Image. Wieland stated that Crabtree gave her the impression that he was licensed.

Wieland was not aware of any relationship between Image and Design House. Crabtree was referred to her as someone who performed cabinetry.

Testimony of Rick Stevens

Rick Stevens has hired Deubel for here different projects. Stevens likes Deubel because he has great communication skills and promptly returns his messages. Stevens stated that Deubel always covers his subcontractors. Stevens does not know White or Crabtree.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).

Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainants of their

right to prosecute the complaints or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaints. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 32-1154(D).

Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. 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).

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Image’s contract did not

include a statement that the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A), which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(12) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1158.

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated Ariz.

Rev. Stat. section 32-1124(B).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not

perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108, and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent attempted to

evade Ariz. Rev. Stat. Title 32, Chapter 10, by acting with a unlicensed person, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(9).

12. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A)(22).

13. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned construction contracts, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(1).

14. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Image violated Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.

15. Upon consideration of the evidence presented in this matter, Image’s license should be revoked.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke License Nos. 313587 and 182234 issued to Image Home Improvement, Inc.

Done this day, May 20, 2020.

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.

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors