ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2023A-00680-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Nicholas Smith

COMPLAINANT,

Arizona Restoration Experts LLC

License No. ROC 267098,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-00680-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 1, 2025

APPEARANCES: Nicholas Smith (Complainant) appeared on behalf of himself. William Terrazas appeared on behalf of Arizona Restoration Experts LLC (Respondent).

Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC or Respondent)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Registrar’s Exhibits 1 through 10.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent performed poor work in connection with a home repair project. The Registrar’s investigator conducted a jobsite inspection. A directive was issued requiring Respondent to make the following repairs:

Compliance Item: 1 - Water leaks throughout house, Damage to new roof installed in MAY 2022. Damage to drywall and insulation. Investigator’s Observation: Complaint is related to newly installed windows that are leaking. Installation is not finished, caulking and painting have not been completed. Per Complainant windows have not been worked on since original JSI. After further investigation it was decided to reopen case and issue written Directive.

[See Exhibit 2, ROC-019]

On August 28, 2023 and October 17, 2023, a hearing was held regarding the complaint and a citation that was issued against Respondent’s license.

After the hearing, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark (Judge Clark) issued a recommended decision concluding that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and 32-1154(A)(22). Judge Clark also recommended a two-day suspension. Judge Clark’s recommended decision included the following findings of fact:

(A) On January 17, 2022, Complainant and Susan Wright entered into a $50,952.86 contract with Pella Window and Door Showroom of Tucson (Pella) for the purchase and installation of 29 exterior windows for the Pusch Peak Pl. property.

(B) Pella subcontracted Complainant’s window installation to Respondent.

(C) Complainant and Respondent entered into a verbal agreement, in an undisclosed amount, for Respondent to perform “stucco patches” around Complainant’s newly installed windows. Complainant paid Respondent $18,104.00 towards the stucco project.

[See ALJ Decision Exhibit 3, ROC-030-031]

On November 21, 2023, the Registrar issued an order adopting Judge Clark’s findings and conclusions of law in the recommended decision. The Registrar imposed a two-day suspension on Respondent’s license.

The Registrar’s November 21, 2023 order has not been appealed.

On February 25, 2025, Complainant filed a Residential Recovery Fund claim. The Registrar assigned Erika Hoskin (Hoskin), Legal Assistant II at the Registrar, to review the claim. West Ellington, an investigator for the Registrar, informed Hoskin that the bid from Escobar Wall Systems appropriately addressed the items in the Directive.

The bid from Escobar Wall Systems included stucco and window repair. In review of the claim and all supporting documents, Hoskin determined that the itemized bid from Escobar Wall Systems LLC License No. 317088 in the amount of $9500.00 included the necessary repairs to comply with the Directive. Hoskin determined that Complainant’s actual damages were equal to the amount of the bid from Escobar Wall Systems because Complainant did not have a balance on her contract with Respondent. Escobar Wall Systems performed the repair work described in the bid and Complainant paid Escobar $9,500.00 for the work.

On April 24, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award to Complainant and Respondent. The Notice of Administrative Award provided that determined that Complainant would be awarded a $9,500.00 payout from the Residential Recovery Fund.

Respondent filed a timely request for hearing.

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on July 1, 2025.

At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of Hoskin who testified regarding her review of the claim. William Terrezas (Terrezas), Respondent’s qualifying party, testified on behalf of Respondent.

At hearing, Terrazas stated that the Registrar’s Investigator found that the job was incomplete and needed to be painted and caulked. Mr. Terrazas stated that Respondent did not contract to perform painting and caulking work. Mr. Terrazas stated that Complainant has removed stucco and had re-flashing work performed. Terrazas also stated that he did not have a contract with Complainant to perform work on the windows. Mr. Terrazas also stated that Complainant owed a balance of $2,600.00.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

2. 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. . . .” Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect by a preponderance of the evidence.

3. “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.”

4. Upon consideration of all the evidence presented at hearing, the Tribunal concludes that the award provided by the Fund is an accurate reflection of Complainants’ actual damages. The award appears to properly remedy the workmanship violations for which Respondent was responsible. In the absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence that the bid utilized was excessive, the Tribunal finds that the bid was, in fact, appropriate.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainant receive a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $9,500.00.

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, July 12, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Arizona Restoration Experts LLC

[email redacted]

Nicholas Smith

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff