ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2023A-03181-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-14
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Renee Riksheim,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Sefferovich Construction Inc,
License No. ROC 053403,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-03181-RFA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 27, 2026.
APPEARANCES: Complainant Renee Riksheim appeared on her own behalf. John Sefferovich appeared on behalf of Respondent Sefferovich Construction Inc. Charles Hover III represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Exhibits 1 through 13; Respondent Exhibits 1 through 5.
_____________________________________________________________________
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 November 12, 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. The Office of Administrative Hearings issued an 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. The hearing was subsequently continued, and the parties were provided new virtual information; the latest ORDER resetting the hearing was issued on March 9, 2026, and email to the parties at the addresses of record provided by the Registrar.
4. At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of Erika Hoskin, legal assistant, for the Registrar.
BACKGROUND
5. On April 3, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint form (Complaint) with the Registrar alleging poor work on a house project. The Complaint indicated that the work began on August 21, 2021, and ended on October 27, 2021. The Complaint indicated that the contract amount was for $18,000.00 and that Respondent had been paid $29,500.00.
6. The Registrar conducted an investigation into the Complaint. At the job-site inspection(s), Investigator determined that there were issues with the subflooring and concrete wall and he issued a written directive (Directive). The Directive indicated the following:
Compliance Item: 1 - subfloor was left lower than stem wall resulting in
flooring not being able to go to the wall.
Investigator’s Observation: Plans show subfloor framing flush with top
of the stemwall allowing final flooring to go all the way to the wall. When
placing a level on this floor it is approx 1/2" low on the stemwall side.
Respondent states he was not finished with the floor, however, all components have been installed per the plan. Any leveling or shimming should have been done under the subfloor framing as the plan shows.
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.
Compliance Item: 2 - Subflooring is slanted.
Investigator’s Observation: Floor is approx 1/2" out of level in just over
a 4 foot span.
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.
Compliance Item: 4 - Concrete wall was not formed properly and comes out at an angle.
Investigator’s Observation: Concrete wall at opening from kitchen to
the porch is 8 1/8th at the top and 8 3/4" at the bottom. There is a very
noticeable bend in the wall.
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.
7. After a compliance inspection and determining that no corrective work had been performed by the Directive deadline, Investigator forwarded the case to the ROC legal process.
8. On August 3, 2035, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158, and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A)(22).
9. After Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation, the matter was forwarded to the Tribunal for an administrative hearing, after which the Registrar imposed discipline on Respondent’s license based on the recommendations in the Administrative Law Judge Decision.
RECOVERY FUND CLAIM
10. On September 23, 2025, Complainant filed the Recovery Fund Claim Form. Complainant submitted relevant information for consideration of the Fund Claim.
11. During review of the Fund Claim by the Registrar, Investigator provided the following information for consideration:
I reviewed the two bids and compared them to the directive issued on case number 2023-03181. I believe the items are all inline with the directive on both bids. The majority of the costs are associated with the removal of the poor workmanship (subfloor) that was directed to be corrected to be rectified by Inv Springer.
12. On October 2, 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 amount of $22,186.55.
13. On October 14, 2025, Respondent filed an appeal regarding the Award determination and requested an administrative hearing, arguing that Respondent had acted in good faith and took all reasonable steps to perform the corrective action. Respondent argued that to give Complainant an Award would have significant impact on Respondent’s reputation and unjustly penalize Respondent. Respondent noted that Complainant had prevented Respondent from completing corrective work and had completed the remodel using unlicensed contractors.
14. Based on the hearing record, Complainant was eligible 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. Complainant stated that she had not known of the status of Respondent’s work until after the countertops were in and she began to have flooring done. Complainant stated that it was the same with the wall in that she did not know about the status of the wall until she started painting.
17. Respondent argued it was not responsible for any construction work performed by others after Respondent had completed the subflooring and had stabilized the kitchen corner. Respondent argued that its subflooring work was completed and that, when Complainant then determined to have the tile match to the porch, the flooring itself would have needed to be built up to a final correct floor level height by that installer, which was not part of Respondent’s contract with Complainant. Respondent argued that the bids reviewed by Registrar included items that were not within the purview of Respondent’s responsibility and that Respondent should not have to pay for those items.
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’s initial work on the subflooring and the concrete wall was not in compliance with standards.
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 Complainant’s 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.”
While Respondent argued that the determined flooring issue was the result of subsequent contractors having failed to adjust the subflooring to a final correct floor level height for proper installation of the final flooring, the Investigator had determined that Respondent had not appropriately leveled or shimmed the subflooring according to the plans.
After review of the hearing record and post-hearing submissions, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Registrar’s determination of the $22,186.55 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 was not only justifiable but also appropriate, given the health and safety circumstances and significant deficiencies in Respondent’s installation. 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 $22,186.55 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 $22,186.55.
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 $22,186.55 to Complainant Renee RiksHeim.
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, April 14, 2026.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Sefferovich Construction Inc
[email redacted]
Renee Riksheim
[email redacted]
Charles S. Hover, III
Office of the Attorney General
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff