ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2023A-00056-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-31

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Iftequar Siddiqui,

COMPLAINANT,

BMR Roofing LLC,

License No. ROC 315752,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-00056-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 26, 2025

APPEARANCES: Iftequar Ahmed Siddiqui appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Corey Larson represented BMR Roofing LLC. Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover III represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Exhibits 1 through 17; Registrar’s Substantive Policy Statement 2021.01 [undated]; Complainant Exhibits 1 through 7, and 11.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On November 27, 2024, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-entitled matter for administrative hearing; following a continuance, the matter was heard on February 26, 2025.

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

3. At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of Gail Matthews, legal assistant for the Registrar. Complainant Iftequar Siddiqui testified on his own behalf. Respondent BMR presented no evidence; Shemielee Aguilar Sinclair was present for the hearing.

BACKGROUND

4. BMR Roofing LLC (Respondent) is a Specialty Dual CR-42 Roofing Contractor. On September 28, 2017, the Registrar issued License No. 315752 Specialty Dual CR-42 Roofing contracting license to Respondent. Shemielee Aguilar Sinclair is Respondent’s Qualifying Party.

5. In April 2000, Rick and Miorri Snow owned residential property located at 7460 E. Knollwood Drive in Tucson, Arizona (Property). In November of 2021, the Snows (Seller) put the home on the market.

6. In August 2021, Seller had entered into a $35,000.00 contract with Respondent for the replacement of the roof underlayment at the Property; the project came with a 10 year guarantee against leaks. Respondent reused existing tiles, and replaced them using the same or similar wet-set method as the original roofer; Ms. Aguilar Sinclair relied on her 2017 licensing studies and related materials on the project, but did not confirm her chosen method with the city or county building authorities or Registrar.

7. In November 2021, Seller listed the Property for sale. In January 2022 Seller dropped the asking price to $699,000. On February 15, 2022, Seller dropped the asking price to $625,000.

8. On February 22, 2022, Complainant entered into a residential property purchase agreement with Seller to purchase the Property. The Warranties Section 5a states:

Condition of Premises: BUYER AND SELLER AGREE THE PREMISES ARE BEING SOLD IN ITS PRESENT PHYSICAL CONDITION AS OF THE DATE OF CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE. Seller makes no warranty to Buyer, either express or implied, as to the condition, zoning, or fitness for any particular use or purpose of the Premises. However, Seller shall maintain and repair the Premises so that at the earlier of possession or COE: (i) the Premises, including all personal property included in the sale, will be in substantially the same condition as on the date of Contract acceptance; and (ii) all personal property not included in the sale and debris will be removed from the Premises. Buyer is advised to conduct independent inspections and investigations regarding the Premises within the Inspection Period as specified in Section 6a. Buyer and Seller acknowledge and understand they may, but are not obligated to, engage in negotiations for repairs/improvements to the Premises. Any/all agreed upon repairs/improvements will be addressed pursuant to Section 6j.

9. On March 1, 2022, the Property was inspected by Mark Ashby (Inspector) of Home Sweet Home. As to the roof, the Inspector noted the following:

Spanish Tile Roof

General Comments

Informational Conditions

3.1 - m There are several types of authentic Spanish tile, all of which are made of clay and are easily broken. Like most inspectors, we elect not to walk on them but view them instead from a variety of vantage points using a ladder and binoculars. They can be installed in different ways, using various fasteners and mortar, over one or more waterproof membranes of varying weights. Sometimes the tiles appear to be careless installed, or randomly layered and irregularly placed, but this is characteristic of a classic Spanish tile roof. As with other pitched roofs, they are not designed to be waterproof only water-resistant, and are dependant on the integrity of the membrane beneath them, which is concealed, but which can be split by movement, or deteriorated through time and ultra-violet contamination. These roofs can leak, and sometimes without there being any obvious damage to the tiles, and particularly if damaged tiles have been replaced over a deteriorated membrane. However, the most common form of leakage occurs when the valleys or other drainage channels become blocked by debris, which causes water to back up and be directed under the flashing. Therefore, it is important to inspect these roofs annually and to have them cleaned.

Method of Evaluation

Informational Conditions

3.2 - m We elected not to walk the roof because the roofing material is easily broken, and evaluated it from several other vantage points.

Estimated Age

Informational Conditions

3.3 - m The roof appears to be relatively new, and is not original. However, this is just an estimate and you should request the installation permit from the sellers, which will reveal its exact age and any warranty or guarantee that might be applicable.

Roofing Material Informational

Conditions

3.4 - m The tile roof is in acceptable condition, but this is not a guarantee against leaks. For a guarantee, you would need to have a roofing company perform a water-test and issue a roof certification.

10. Regarding the interior of the home, the Home Sweet Home Inspector found evidence of previous water leaks and, given the information that the roof has been replaced in 2021, Inspector stated that the water leak was “inactive.”

11. Regarding the interior of the home and its plumbing, the Home Sweet Home Inspector found that the pipes were polybutylene and the Inspector recommended replacement.

Potable Water Supply Pipes Polybutylene Water Pipes

Components and Conditions Needing Service

5.1 - v The water plumbing system includes polybutylene water pipes, commonly referred to as PB, that have been alleged to be defective .They were installed in homes between 1978 and 1995. They are easily recognizable as a flexible, gray, blue, or black plastic, which include metal fittings that are connected by aluminum or copper bands. However, they should not be confused with PVC pipe, which is white and rigid and commonly used for irrigation. You can learn more about these pipes on the Web at www.pbpipe.com. We recommend the further review, advice and services of a plumbing contractor for water lines replacement due to age.

12. In November 2021, Sellers had completed the Residential Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement (SPDS). As to the roof, Seller acknowledged the entire roof was replaced in 2021 and that there were roof leaks prior to the roof replacement. Additionally, Seller acknowledged that there was a warranty of the roof and, by not indicating there was an amount involved, indicating there was not a cost to transfer the warranty. Seller also indicated that the plumbing pipes were PVC.

13. On February 23, 2022, Complainant signed receipt of the SPDS.

14. On March 4, 2022, Complainant provided the Residential Buyer’s Inspection Notice and Seller’s Response (BINSR) form.

15. As part of the home price negotiations between the Seller and Complainant, each of whom was represented by realtors, Complainant requested $22,000 credit for replacement of the polybutylene pipes, because such replacement had been recommended by the Home Sweet Home Inspector.

16. As part of the home price negotiations, on March 5, 2022, Seller agreed to give a $10,000 credit.

17. On or about April 13, 2022, escrow closed on the Property for $635,000. The final $635,000 amount was higher than the February 15, 2022 reduced $625,000 price.

18. In August 2022, the Property’s roof began to leak during seasonal rainfall.

19. On or about August 29, 2022, Complainant reported the leak(s) to Respondent.

20. On September 07, 2022, Respondent was called to the Property to inspect the alleged leak(s). However, at that time the roof itself was not inspected. Instead, Respondent focused its inspection on the interior of the residence. A subsequent roof inspection was scheduled by Respondent for September 15, 2022, but was cancelled prior to the appointment.

21. On or about August 20, 2022, Complainant filed a homeowner’s insurance claim, 01-005-770072, which resulted in an inspection by the insurer, Progressive, on October 11, 2022. The Progressive insurance claim adjustment report noted the following:

Based on the completed inspection on 10/11/22 it was confirmed that there was no apparent storm damage to the roof. However, upon inspection, it was noticed that there was not proper installation of roof pipe jacks and vents. There was mortar packed to seal these projections which not to manufacture specifications. [sic] The multipiece wet set clay tile roof system should have proper flashing instlled [sic] without mortar. There were multiple broken tiles on the west facing slope, source of the leaks, that [sic] are allowing water to enter under the tiles and penetrate through 5” nails securing tiles to the deck. With new underlayment this should not be an issue, yet there are multiple leaks thoughout [sic] home. Broken tiles are not a result of foot traffic, but likely install issues. Foot traffic would smash the tiles in mult [sic] pieces, not crack in the manner which these tiles have. These cracked tiles have horzontal [sic] cracks which usually result from installation and lifting of setting mortar to secure tiles. Underlayment at the eaves appeared to be a peel and stick membrane, granular, that does not appear to be newly installed. These issued should be under warranty for workmanship issued by the roofing company which installed this roofing system. (All errors in original.)

22. On February 21, 2023, Progressive issued a claim denial letter to Complainant, stating in pertinent part:

The inspection revealed damage to your roof due to improper installation of the dwelling roof. The adjuster found the vents on right slope are older and do not appear that they were replaced with the roof. Poor installation of the underlayment around the flashings. The step flashing on the front elevation has heavy caulking in this area that was done when the roof was replaced. Unfortunately, this type of damage is specifically excluded from coverage under the terms of your policy. Therefore, we must respectfully decline payment for this portion of your claim.

COMPLAINT 2023A-00056

23. On December 20, 2022, Complainant filed a licensed contractor complaint (Complaint) against Respondent alleging abandonment of the project. In the Complaint, Complainant noted that he had incurred thousands of dollars in expenses attempting to remediate water damage from the leak(s) in the roof. On or about January 13, 2023, the Registrar received a 13-item addendum complaint for Complaint No. 2023-00056 from Complainant.

24. On February 06, 2023, Registrar Investigator Arlo Houston (Inv. Houston). Inv. Houston conducted a job site inspection and determined that Complaint Item #7 failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum standards, specifically noting the following:

Upon inspection at the JSI and/or addendum JSI the complainant said that tiles had not been fastened/nailed and showed me two different tiles that had not been fastened/nailed down.

25. On March 03, 2023, Inv. Houston issued a Written Directive (Directive) to Respondent. The Directive indicates:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on March 21, 2023. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Compliance Item: 7 - "Improper installation of multi-piece wet set clay tile roof system"

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Upon inspection at the JSI and/or addendum JSI the complainant said that tiles had not been fastened/nailed and showed me two different tiles that had not been fastened/nailed down. -Respondent to remedy all areas of roofing system where this condition is present

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

26. Respondent did not remedy the determined construction deficiencies by the deadline set forth in the March 3, 2023 Directive.

27. On March 22, 2023, Inv. Houston forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department for issuance of a Citation.

28. On March 24, 2023, the Registrar issued its Citation alleging violations by Respondent as follows:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3)-R4-9-108(a) Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar.

29. On April 6, 2023, Respondent filed its answer to the Citation, stating in pertinent part:

The complainant made false allegations against BMR Roofing LLC.

The damages/loose tile were caused by another company.

Upon the final ROC inspection the complainant had an independent roofing contractor on-site remove 2 tiles that appeared already compromised and then made the false allegation.

The inspection performed on 3/1/2022 States “The tile roof is in acceptable condition”

The BINSR specifies that the buyer (complainant) requested $22.000 credit in lieu of repairs further More During the investigation process the complainant declined to perform a water test. . . .

Additional Events

30. In the interim, on April 3, 2023, Complainant filed another complaint against Respondent’s license, again alleging poor work on the roofing project. A full process ensued including jobsite inspections and a June 7, 2023 addendum complaint after which Inv. Houston issued an Amended Directive on June 28, 2023 with instructions for Respondent to complete corrective action on the one verified item no later than July 18, 2023.

31. Regarding these additional complaints, Respondent did not perform the corrective work as directed.

32. On July 25, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of (a) Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3)-R4-9-108(a), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and (b) Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

33. On August 08, 2023, The Klingler Group, LLC (TKG) completed a visual inspection of Complainant’s roof.

34. As stated in the ALJ Decision:

Per TKG’s firsthand observations, in conjunction with reviews of other inspection reports and manufacturer’s specifications, the following deficiencies were identified, in pertinent parts:

The roof consists of fifteen separate roof slopes with a 5:12 slope surfaced with two-piece tapered clay mission tiles. [TKG’s] visual inspection of [Complainant’s] roof consisted of examining the roof from a ladder and through vantage points were the roof could be viewed.

1. Blocked or restricted drainage at valley and confined rake pan flashing.

2. Missing crickets and/or crickets covered over by tile obstructing drainage.

3. Tiles do not project over eave uniformly and many terminate behind eave closure

4. Non-compliant tile attachment.

With a roof slope of 5:12 with tiles placed over solid sheathing with no battens, building code and industry standards require every tile to be fastened. (See 2018 IRC –R905.3.6 and Table R905.3.7; M.C.A. Clay Tile Guide Specification for Classic Tapered Mission Clay Tile – Section 07320 and UBC Chapter 15.) Our inspection findings reveal that the tiles are not mechanically fastened and that the mortar attachment is neither sound nor effective. Building code requires each tile to be fastened with one mechanical fastener per tile. To remediate this deficiency, which—if unaddressed—will lead to premature roof failure from wind loss as well as needless future tile displacement, all tiles will need to be removed. After which, the existing underlayment will need to be removed and replaced, followed by re-installation of new clay tiles, as many of these tiles have been removed and reinstalled previously and are no longer suitable for use.

5. Open rake trim tiles not properly nested – tiles stretched with excessive exposure.

6. Improperly integrated and under-sized secondary B-vent flashing.

7. Sloppy and failed mortar application.

8. Improperly installed use and placement of pan, cover and trim tiles.

9. Exposed fasteners (shiners) at eaves and rake locations.

10. Stain evidence consistent with active roof leaks.

11. Broken and misplaced tile.

(Emphasis in original.)

Specifications note that 2 fasteners are required per tile. Only 1 fastener on slopes of 7 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (58.3% slope) and less for tiles with installed weight exceeding 7.5lbs per square foot, having a width no greater than 16 inches.

Complaints Hearing

35. On October 12, 2023 and December 20 and 21, 2023, an Administrative Law Judge conducted the administrative hearing in this matter.

36. Based on the evidence admitted therein, in the Administrative Law Judge Decision dated January 22, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent’s workmanship on the roof fell below the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards, as was evidenced by TKG’s report, a Home Sweet Home inspection report, as well as the Directives issued in both complaints. Specific to Complaint No. 2023-00056, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent made no attempts to correct the deficiencies and further concluded that Respondent did not sustain its burden to demonstrate any justification or excuse for failing to adhere to the Registrar’s Directives which required Respondent to correct the workmanship deficiencies Inv. Houston had verified.

37. Based on the evidence admitted therein, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Complainant had established Respondent’s violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and 32-1154(A)(22) in both matters and, further, that Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s contractor’s license. Finally, the Administrative law Judge concluded that Complainant was able to petition the Registrar’s Recovery Fund for financial recompense in the matters. The Administrative Law Judge recommended that the Registrar impose a 7-day suspension and a $200.00 penalty.

38. On February 21, 2024, the Registrar accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision and issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order determining that Respondent had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and 32-1154(A)(22) and the Registrar imposed discipline on Respondent’s license.

RECOVERY FUND CLAIM

39. On June 27, 2024, Complainant filed a Fund Claim form. ON the Claim form, Complainant acknowledged that the Snow-BMR contract was for $35,000.00, and Complainant indicated that the lowest bid he had obtained for repair and to complete the roofing project was $78,880.00. Complainant indicated that he anticipated receiving a $30,000.00 award from the Fund.

40. There is no dispute that Complainant was eligible to apply for a Fund claim pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1131 et seq. However, even when an applicant meets the eligibility criteria, an applicant must further establish by a preponderance of evidence that damages sought are within the limitations of compensability as set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132.01. Such an evidentiary showing requires documentation to support the original contract price, scope of work, payments made toward performance of the contract and documentation to substantiate costs to complete or repair any work required by the underlying disciplinary proceedings.

41. On October 25, 2024, based on the documentation reviewed and pursuant to the Registrar’s Substantive Policy Statement 2021.01, the Registrar notified Complainant through a Notice and Order of Recovery Fund Ineligibility (Notice) that he was not able to access the Fund. The Registrar determined that Complainant know about the roof and water damages issues when he purchased the property and he had purchased the property in an “As-Is” condition; therefore, Complainant had not suffered “actual damages.”

42. In making its determination, the Registrar relied on the parties’ purchase contract provision having stated that “Buyer and seller agree the premises are being sold in its present physical condition as of the date of contract acceptance.” The Registrar also relied on the Seller’s Disclosure Statement having informed Complainant of the past water damages as well as the March 1, 2022 pre-purchase inspection report which had disclosed the observable water damage issues.

43. The Registrar’s Substantive Policy Statement 2021.01, Subsequent Purchasers and the Recovery Fund, provides as follows:

A purchaser of residential property damaged by a licensed residential contractor may not receive a payout if: (1) The purchaser knew of the defect prior to purchasing the property; (2) The purchaser could have discovered the defect by a reasonable inspection; or (3) The sales contract included an “as is” clause which included the claimed defective work.

44. Complainant filed an appeal regarding the ROC determination.

45. At hearing, Complainant credibly testified that the sale was not an “As-Is” sale transaction and that, if it had been, there would have been no negotiations regarding the sales price, i.e., as to his request for the $22,000 credit. Regarding those “negotiations,” Complainant credibly testified that the price negotiations were related to the existence of the polybutylene pipes which replacement had been recommended by the Home Sweet Home Inspector.

46. Complainant noted that both he and the Seller were represented by realtors who would had followed industry standards as to any As-Is sale. Complainant presented a copy of the Arizona Association of Realtors’ As-Is Addendum form, which Addendum specifies that the As-Is Addendum takes the place of Section 5a Warranties. Further, in support of his testimony this was not an As-Is transaction, Complainant presented a statement from his realtor confirming the negotiations between the parties and that they did not execute an As-Is Addendum. Complainant argued that he sustained actual damages and is eligible for a Fund recovery.

47. At hearing, the Registrar argued that, the parties’ contract having specified that “Buyer and seller agree the premises are being sold in its present physical condition as of the date of contract acceptance” was intended to serve as an “As-Is” clause and, thus, that clause meant that the property was being sold in an “As-Is” condition. Further, the Registrar argued that Complainant had the property inspected and the March 1, 2022 inspection, and others inspections, had informed Complainant that the Property had evidence of water/roof leaks. The Registrar argued that Complainant was not “damaged” and was not eligible for a Fund recovery for the reasons stated in its October 25, 2024 determination.

48. At hearing, Respondent argued that, based on the original listing price of the home, Complainant got a “good deal” on the home, alleging that Complainant had obtained a significant discount on the home, trying to tie the $635,000 price to the roofing issues. Respondent echoed the Registrar’s position that Complainant’s Fund claim should be denied based on the Substantive Policy Statement 2021.01.

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. § 32-1132 provides that to be eligible for an award from the Fund, an individual claimant must meet the following requirements:

(1) Show that the damage was caused by a licensed residential contractor who was appropriately licensed when the underlying contract was signed, when the first payment was made, or when the underlying work first commenced. [A.R.S. §§ 32- 1132(C) & (D)];

(2) Own the residential real property that is damaged by the failure of a residential contractor to adequately build or improve a residential structure of appurtenance; [A.R.S. § 32-1132(B)(1)(a)];

(3) Actually occupy or intend to occupy the residential real property as their primary residence. [A.R.S. § 32-1132(B)(1)(b)].

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish that the Registrar’s determination of ineligibility for access to and a payout from the Fund is incorrect 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.”

Regarding its Substantive Policy Statement 2021.01, the Registrar cites to McMurren v. JMC Builders, Inc, 204 Ariz. 345, 351, 63 P.3d 1082, 1088 (App. 2003), for the proposition that a person who purchases a damaged property at a discounted price from an owner who hired the contractor which caused the damage is not “damaged” because the discounted price reflects the, apparently “known,” “damage” to the property. However, in the instant case, the hearing evidence does not reflect any support for the proposition that there was a “discounted price” with regard to the roofing and leaking issues. In fact, the Sellers had reduced the selling price on February 15, 2022 to $625,000 prior to Complainant entering into that contract on February 22, 2022. Additionally, the home’s final sale price was $635,000; the numbers do not demonstrate any “discount.”

The hearing evidence does not support a conclusion that the $10,000.00 credit given by Sellers was related in any way to any roofing issue.

The hearing evidence gives no support to the position that Complainant knew of the “defect” when he purchased the Property. The March 1, 2022 Home Sweet Home inspection gave no indication, or hint, there was any then-current roofing/water leak, specifically noting because the roof had been replaced in 2021, the water leak was “inactive.” Additionally, based on the Seller’s disclosure that there were leaks “prior” to the roof being replaced in August 2021, Complainant could not have known, and reasonably believed, that the BMR Roofing installation, with a 10-year warranty, was not, in fact, defective as was later determined by Inv. Houston. Finally, the proposition that the contract statement of “Buyer and seller agree the premises are being sold in its present physical condition as of the date of contract acceptance” in some way demonstrates a sale thereunder as an As-Is” sale stretches credulity when the Arizona Realtors’ Association industry standards call for using a specific contract addendum form for an “As-Is” sale. Lastly, the Substantive Policy Statement on its face indicates that an “as-is” clause must include the claimed defective work; the relied-on contract clause makes no such statement. Here, the evidentiary facts do not permit an application of Substantive Policy Statement 2021.01 to the Snow-Complainant home sales contract and transaction.

After review of all the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Registrar’s determination was improper. The weight of the credible evidence in this matter demonstrates that the Registrar incorrectly determined that Complainant did not sustain actual damages and is not eligible for access to the Fund. Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Registrar incorrectly denied Complainant’s Fund claim.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Complainant’s appeal is granted and

IT IS ORDERED the matter is remanded to the Registrar for an appropriate determination of Complainant’s Fund Claim

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, March 31, 2025.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

Charles Hover III Assistant Attorney General

[email redacted]

Iftequar Ahmed Siddiqui

[email redacted]

Corey B. Larson Esq.

Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Henshaw and Villamana, P.C.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff