ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2022A-08241-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Heidi Luekenga,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Frontline Consultants & Contracting LLC,

License No. ROC 322829,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2022A-08241-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 16, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Heidi Luekenga appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Nicholis Faussette represented Respondent Frontline Consultants & Contracting LLC; Cody Lee Brewster, Owner of Respondent also appeared. Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover III represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Exhibits 1 through 13.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) administers a Residentiary Recovery Fund (Fund). The Registrar’s Notice of Hearing provided that the issue set for determination in this matter was Respondent’s appeal of the Registrar’s determination regarding Complainant’s Fund Claim.

2. On April 7, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above entitled matter for hearing. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to the parties at the addresses of record.

3. By ORDER dated April 8, 2025, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued its ORDER by email advising the parties the hearing would be conducted virtually by videoconference or telephone via Google Meet and providing the instructions to connect to the hearing.

4. At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of Meredith Bell, legal assistant for the Registrar.

BACKGROUND

5. On September 19, 2022, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint form (Complaint) with the Registrar alleging abandonment in connection with a construction project at her home. The Complaint indicated that the contract amount was for $28,000.00 and that Respondent had been paid $14,000.00.

6. The Registrar conducted an investigation into the Complaint. Registrar Investigator Grimm conducted a job-site inspection on November 9, 2022. Respondent did not attend. Investigator Grimm determined that Respondent had received the deposit and then had never returned to the project.

7. On November 18, 2022, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

8. On December 2, 2022, Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation and Complaint. Respondent stated the following, in pertinent part:

Complainant ... hired Respondent ... to be the general contractor for an interior home remodel, consisting of a kitchen remodel, four bathroom remodels and a tile remodel. The agreement between the parties entailed Complainant paying the sum of $28,000.00 to Respondent, plus an additional 7.5% (of $28,000) to be paid after the job was completed. Complainant paid the sum of $14,000.00 on March 14, 2022. [Respondent] hired Penny Estes to be the project manager; and assigned Brenner Willis to be the renovation coordinator. Brenner Willis was an employee of [Respondent] at that time, but Penny Estes was an independent contractor.

At a certain point, prior to the completion of the scope of work outlined in the estimates, both Penny Estes, the project manager; and Brenner Willis, the renovation coordinator, had quit or stopped working on Complainant’s job site. Once Respondent was made aware, Respondent visited the job site to establish rapport with Complainant and adhere to the scope of work originally agreed to. A dispute arose regarding the demolition of a particular supporting wall within the dwelling, and Respondent notified the Complainant that all further work was to be performed by a different contractor due to the safety issues and concerns that Respondent addressed with Complainant regarding the demolition of the load bearing wall. Respondent attempted to finalize the agreement with Complainant via a check, as a partial refund because most of the work at the point had been completed. The parties’ only issue is how much of a refund should be given to Complainant by Respondent.

9. Following an administrative hearing, an Administrative Law Judge issued an Administrative Law Judge Decision on February 22, 2023, finding that the evidence of record demonstrated that Respondent had abandoned the project in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. code R4-9-108(A).

10. On March 27, 2024, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order accepting the Administrative Law Judge Decision, thus determining that Respondent had violated those cited statutory provisions.

RECOVERY FUND CLAIM

11. On January 16, 2025, Complainant filed the Recovery Fund Claim Form. Complainant submitted relevant information for consideration of the Fund Claim.

12. On March 7, 2025, the Registrar notified the parties regarding the determined Administrative Award from the Fund. The Registrar determined that Complainant had sustained actual damages in the principle amount of $14,000.00.

13. On March 15, 2025, Respondent filed an appeal regarding the determination and requested an administrative hearing.

14. At hearing, the parties stipulated to Complainant’s eligibility for a Fund Claim.

15. The Registrar’s witness testified regarding the appropriateness of the determined Award that was supported both by the administrative hearing record and by the Fund Claim.

16. Respondent argued that it had, in fact, earned some money under the parties’ agreement and that Complainant should not receive back the entire $14,000.00 in deposit monies.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A) provides that “[a]n award from the fund is limited to the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of the contractor's violation but shall not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines. . . .”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-11132.01(C) provides:

If the claimant paid a deposit or down payment and no actual work is performed or materials are delivered, the claimant's actual damages are the exact dollar amount of the deposit or down payment plus interest at the rate of ten percent a year from the date the deposit or down payment is made ...

The Registrar’s final decision in the underlying workmanship/disciplinary case giving rise to the instant matter establishes that Respondent performed no construction work and that Complainant had contracted directly with, and paid, trades who performed the construction work on the project.

When the Registrar has calculated the amount of a complainant’s actual compensable damages and has proposed a payout from the Fund to which a complainant is entitled, the calculation is a prima facie showing of the amount that a complainant is entitled to recover as a payout from the Fund.

Having appealed the Award, the Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the Registrar’s determination of eligibility for access to, and the determined payout from, the Fund is incorrect or inappropriate by a preponderance of the evidence.

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he 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.”

After review of the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Registrar’s determination of the $14,000.00 Award amount was either improper or inappropriate.

The weight of the evidence shows that the Registrar correctly determined that Complainant is eligible for access to the Fund pursuant to statute and that the determined Award amount is appropriate. Consequently, the Registrar appropriately granted Complainant’s Fund claim.

After review of all the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant is eligible for an award from the Fund and that the $14,000.00 Award proposed by the Fund accurately reflects Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $14,000.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED Respondent’s appeal is dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund shall pay $14,000.00 to Complainant Heidi Luekenga.

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 (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, June 22, 2025.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

Charles Hover III

Assistant Attorney General

[email redacted]

Attorney for the Arizona Registrar of Contractors

Heidi Luekenga

[email redacted]

Nicholis Faussette

Faussette and Faussette PLLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff