ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2020A-04246-LDA-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2021-03-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Arizona Registrar of Contractors,

COMPLAINANT

International Rising 360 LLC,

Application No. [number redacted],

RESPONDENT

No. 2020A-04246-LDA-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 10, 2021

APPEARANCES: Ruben Barraza appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent International Rising 360, LLC. Complainant Arizona Registrar of Contractors was represented by Assistant Attorney General Sarah A. Asta who appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background

1. On June 9, 2020, the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) received an application for licensure, which Application No. [number redacted].

2. The Qualifying Party was listed as Ruben Armando Barraza Jr. In the application, Mr. Barraza listed that he had felony charges for unlicensed contracting.

3. On or about July 23, 2020, the Registrar issued its Notice of License Denial. The Registrar denied the license for the following reason:

Mr. Barraza failed to establish good character and reputation under A.R.S. § 32-1122(C) by engaging in contracting without a license, and by failing to show that all loss has been fully satisifed.

Under A.R.S. § 32-1122(C), “each person who is named on a license must be of good character and reputation. Lack of good character and reputation may be established by showing that a person engaged in contracting without a license....”

Mr. Barraza has failed to establish good character and reputation due to engaging in contracting without a license, as proven in JC2013-447689, and as further indicated in ROC Complaint No. 2017-4744.

(All errors contained in the original).

4. On August 24, 2020, Mr. Barraza sent an e-mail to the Registrar explaining that he was trying to rectify the past.

5. The Registrar deemed that e-mail an appeal and issued a Notice of Hearing on Appealable Agency Action on September 18, 2020. The hearing was set for October 19, 2020, before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency.

6. On December 23, 2020, the Complainant filed a Motion to Continue as Respondent had requested more time to satisfy his outstanding balance. That Motion was granted and the hearing took place on March 10, 2021.

7. At hearing, Complainant presented the testimony of Chance Peterson, Assistant Chief Counsel for the Registrar and offered six exhibits into evidence.

8. Mr. Peterson testified that because Mr. Barraza disclosed that he had a felony conviction for unlicensed contracting, he investigated the same.

9. Mr. Peterson testified that on April 27, 2017, Mr. Barraza was convicted of unlicensed contracting in the Arcadia Biltmore Justice Court, Case No. JC2013-447689.

10. Mr. Peterson testified that on or about July 17, 2016, Mr. Barraza was sentenced to probation for a period of five years, and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $35,500.00, and that as of July 31, 2019 the outstanding balance was $34,200.00.

11. Mr. Peterson further testified that on September 22, 2017, the Registrar issued a Warning Letter pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1123(D), notifying Mr. Barraza that the Registrar was investigating an allegation that he “acted in the capacity of a contractor without being properly licensed as required by law by submitting a bid on a construction project with an aggregate worth of more than one thousand dollars and less than twenty thousand dollars.”

12. In addition, Mr. Peterson testified that the application was sent to the “good-character committee” which looks at the totality of the circumstances since the conviction was greater than 1 year old.

13. Mr. Peterson testified that based upon the unpaid balance of the restitution and the warning letter in 2017, it was determined that the appropriate action was to deny the application.

14. Mr. Barraza testified that he was trying to do everything in his power to fix the situation, and believed that with the license he would be a valuable asset and could earn the money to pay the restitution.

15. Mr. Barraza testified that he had been in real estate in the past and worked for Trend Homes, when an acquaintance asked for assistance in helping to work on three “fixer-uppers”. Mr. Barraza admitted he did not have a license at that time.

16. Further, Mr. Barraza testified that his payment plan with the court was $50.00 per month, and that his balance owed was now approximately $33,000.00.

17. Mr. Barraza also testified that he had a substantial debt, approximately $28,000.00, with the Internal Revenue Service, and he placed a priority on paying off that debt.

18. Mr. Barraza testified that he is currently employed part-time as a basketball official and has worked as a caregiver.

19. Finally, Mr. Barraza testified that he wanted a fair shot to be successful and wanted a chance to pay the restitution legally with a license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence.

2. A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

3. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §32-1122(C) provides in pertinent part that to obtain a contractor’s license, a person shall be of good character and reputation. Lack of good character and reputation may be established by showing that the person has committed any act which is grounds for suspension or revocation of a license.

4. The Registrar’s concern in this case is legitimate and well-founded. Mr. Barraza was convicted of contracting without a license and was ordered to pay restitution. In the nearly five years since the order, Mr. Barraza has only paid a few thousand dollars. While it is certainly understandable that Mr. Barraza placed a priority on his IRS debt, the effort to repay the restitution timely simply did not exist. Further, the warning letter he received in 2017 for bidding on a project without a license just over a year after the conviction is troubling as well.

5. The Administrative Law Judge applauds Mr. Barraza’s determination to get back on track. Further, the honesty he displayed in the application is admirable. However, at this time, until the restitution is substantially satisfied, denial of a license is appropriate.

6. “[T]he Registrar is charged with the overall responsibility of protecting the welfare of the public dealing with persons engaged in the building contracting vocations and afford the public protection against incompetent, inexperienced, unlawful and fraudulent acts of building contractors.”

7. Grounds exist under A.R.S. §§ 32-1122(C) to deny International Rising 360, LLC a license at this time. As mentioned above, Mr. Barraza appears sincere in his desire to get back on track and improve his situation, however, a more substantial effort at repaying the restitution was not shown. Thus, Mr. Barraza did not establish that he should be granted a license or that the Registrar abused its discretion when it denied International Rising 360, LLC’s application.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s order, the Registrar affirm the decision to deny International Rising 360, LLC’s application for a contractor’s license.

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 30 days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000

Done this day, March 18, 2021.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000