ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2023A-03365-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lisa & Robert Benson,

COMPLAINANTS,

v.

A-Z Services General Contracting LLC

ROC License No. 323407,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-03365-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 26, 2026 at 9:00 AM.

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover III, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) with Meredith Bell as a witness. Lisa Benson (“Complainant”) appeared on behalf of herself and her husband, Robert Benson (collectively as “Complainants”). Jonathon Thomson appeared on behalf of A-Z Services General Contracting LLC (“Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Exhibits 1-16, including the December 04, 2025, Order Granting Continuance, and Notice of Hearing on Appealable Agency Action (“Notice of Action”), were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website. On January 30, 2019, the Registrar issued License No. 323407 to Respondent for Specialty Dual CR-61 Carpentry, Remodeling and Repairs contracting. The license is active and in good standing with the Registrar and has been renewed through January 31, 2027. Jonathon Thomson. is listed as the Qualifying Party, Manager, and Signer on the license. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 7514 W. Encinas Ln. Phoenix, Arizona 85043.

On or about May 20, 2023, the Registrar received a 7-item complaint from Complainants against Respondent’s License No. 323407 alleging poor workmanship of a project involving installation of two (2) sliding glass doors. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2023-03365 and assigned to Steve Klein (“Investigator Klein”) for investigation.

On May 19, 2023, Investigator Klein conducted a review of the contract executed between the parties, took four (4) photographs, and inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was present. When he was finished, Investigator Klein drafted his Jobsite Inspection Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Klein substantiated six (6) complaint items based on his firsthand observations. Specifically, Investigator Klein concluded that the work Respondent performed on complaint items 1-6 failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards.

On May 22, 2023, Investigator Klein issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent because he substantiated most of Complainants’ allegations against Respondent. The Directive put Respondent on notice that the licensee had until 5:00 p.m. on June 22, 2023, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) §§ 32-1154(A), 32-1154(A)(22), and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On June 23, 2023, Investigator Klein issued Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes for the project whereby he noted that Respondent failed to perform any corrective work.

On an unknown date, Investigator Klein forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Citation Recommendation.

On an unknown date, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a), and 32-1154(A)(22).

On August 29, 2023, a hearing was held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, to determine whether grounds existed for the Registrar to take disciplinary action against Respondent’s construction licensed based on violation alleged in the Citation. Respondent participated.

On September 14, 2023, an ALJ Decision was issued to the Registrar’s Director that recommended a four (4) day suspension of License No. 323407 and imposition of a $500.00 civil penalty for violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3), 32-1154(A)(12), and 32-1154(A)(22).

On October 11, 2023, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order (“Final Order”) accepting and adopting the ALJ Decision, effective November 20, 2023. Respondent did not appeal the Final Order.

On July 07, 2024, Complainants submitted a $7,667.00 petition for payment from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“Fund”) to the Registrar, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1132(A) and 32-1154(G). Attached, were copies of Complainants’ remediation invoice from Athena, proof of payment to Athena, affidavit, bond denial letter dated May 21, 2025, Warranty Deed, and the underlying contract with Respondent and proof of payments.

On November 04, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award (“Notice of Award”) to the parties which held that Complainants were to be awarded a $7,985.00 payout from the Fund.

On November 04, 2025, the Registrar received a timely appeal from Respondent contesting Complainants’ award amount.

On November 17, 2025, the Registrar referred 2023A-03365-RFA-LS-ROC to OAH for an independent evidentiary hearing. Per the Notice of Action sent to the parties on November 19, 2025, the issue for hearing was to determine whether Complainants’ award from the Fund was properly determined pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1132 to 32-1133.01 and 32-1154(F), as justified by the evidence.

On January 26, 2026, an administrative evidentiary hearing in the above-captioned matter took place before OAH.

Hearing Evidence

At the hearing, the Registrar called Meredith Bell as a witness. Complainant testified on her own behalf. Jonathon Thomson testified on behalf of Respondent. The substantive evidence is as follows:

Complainants own single family residential property located at 11787 N. 125th Pl. Scottsdale, Arizona 85259.

On or about August 16, 2021, the parties entered into a $20,715.00 remodeling contract including demo, engineering plans, framing, retrofitting, drywall, insulation, door installation, stucco, trim, and weatherstripping replacement.

Work on the project commenced on or about October 01, 2021, and stopped on or about February 01, 2022.

Complainants tendered a total of $20,700.00 to Respondent towards the project.

Respondent did not perform corrective work on any of the substantiated complaint items or enter into a settlement agreement with Complainants prior to the expiration of the Directive. At no time between May 22, 2023, and June 22, 2023, did Respondent allege a denial of access to the project site.

Respondent did not appeal the Registrar’s Final Order.

Additional Evidence

Mr. Thomson testified that Respondent appealed the underlying Notice of Award because only approximately $2,500.00 worth of drywall texturing was remaining on the original project with Complainants. Though Mr. Thomson admitted that Respondent did not obtain any remediation bids or inspections of Respondent’s work on the project site, Mr. Thomson nonetheless opined that the Registrar’s proposed award was “not an 48,000.00 job.”

Complainant testified that the company she chose to remediate her project with has three (3) licenses with the Registrar: 352178 – KB-2 Dual Residential and Small Commercial (05/142024), 296035 – KB-2 Dual Residential and Small Commercial (01/26/2015), and KA-5 Dual Swimming Pool (08/20/2020). Per Complainant, the 296035 was used to address her project, thought he invoice issued was under the name for the 352178 license.

Ms. Bell is a Legal Assistant II for the Registrar. Ms. Bell testified that she made the determination that Complainants were eligible to access the Fund and also qualified for an administrative payout from the Fund because she had suffered “actual damages.” Specifically, Ms. Bell determined the following:

Complainants own and occupy the residential property at issue.

Respondent’s license was active and in good standing with the Registrar when the underlying contract was entered into, when Respondent performed the underlying work in question, as well as when Respondent first received payment from Complainants for the project.

Complainants did not pay the contract in full. There was a $15.00 unpaid balance remaining.

As a result of Complaint No. 2023-03365 being filed with the Registrar, ROC License No. 323407 was suspended for a period of four (4) days and assessed a civil penalty by the Registrar.

Though they applied, Complainants did not receive a bond payout for the underlying project from Respondent’s insurance company.

Although Ms. Bell verified with Alex Figueroa, Assistant Chief of Investigations (“Asst. Chief Figueroa”) and Investigator Klein’s supervisor, that the selected bid from Athena was in line with the Directive, and that ROC License No. 296035 was appropriate to perform the scope of repairs. Asst. Chief Figueroa opined that the bid was “pricey” due to Complainants having vaulted ceilings.

Ultimately, Ms. Bell calculated Complainants’ compensable damages by subtracting monies paid on the original contract price to obtain the unpaid balance, and then deducted that amount from the cost of the selected bid. Thus, Ms. Bell deduced that Complainants’ actual damages totaled $7,985.00.

Ms. Bell testified that the purpose of the Fund was to make homeowners aggrieved by licensees “whole,” and that Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1131 et seq. was specifically limited to the cost of actual construction work, labor and materials.

Closing Arguments

In closing, the Registrar opined that Respondent failed to sustain its burden of proof and that its appeal should be denied. Ultimately, the Registrar opined that it had satisfied its fiduciary duty to comply with the pertinent sections of the law and protect the purpose of the Fund wherein Complainants’ award was lawfully issued.

In closing, Complainant argued that she “operated in trust” with Respondent and suffered due to her reasonable reliance.

In closing, Respondent admitted that the “situation with Complainant got out of control,” but argued that Complaint No. 2023-03365 was the only negative mark on its contracting license. Respondent conceded that it was unaware of the Registrar’s processes, and that in hindsight would have engaged in different decision-making. Per Respondent, the issuance of the Notice of Award was not a fair outcome, all things considered.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

Respondent bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Registrar’s Recover Fund claim award was incorrect and/or improperly issued. Both Complainants and the Registrar bear the burden to establish factors in mitigation by the same evidentiary standard.

“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.”

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1131 et seq., in order to be eligible to access the Recovery Fund an applicant must meet specific eligibility criteria. An individual is eligible for an award from the residential contractors’ recovery fund if they both: (1) own residential real property that is damaged by the failure of a residential contractor to adequately build or improve a residential structure or appurtenance, and (2) actually occupy or intend to occupy the residential real property as the individual’s primary residence. Additionally, the applicant must have contracted with a residential contractor who was appropriately licensed either at the time of contract execution, when the first payment on the project was made, or when the work on the project first began.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(F) provides that “if a contractor’s license has been revoked or has been suspended as a result of an order to remedy a violation of this chapter the registrar may order payment from the residential contractors’ recovery fund to remedy the violation.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1132.01 provides, in pertinent part, that an award from the Recovery Fund “[m]ay not exceed the actual damages suffered” and also “[m]ay not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure.” “Actual damages” means the reasonable cost of completing the contract and repairing the contractor’s defective performance, minus the part of the contract price still unpaid. The maximum individual award from the Recovery Fund is $30,000.00.

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. In interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the language of the statute and, if it is unclear, turn to other factors, including ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.” “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”

The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.

In the case at bar, however, a detailed factual analysis is not necessary because Respondent failed to present any compelling evidence at hearing. The underlying property is owned by Complainants as a primary residence, Complainants paid most of the contract price, and Respondent’s license was active and in good standing with the Registrar during all relevant times. Most notably, ROC License No. 323407 was disciplined by the Registrar in 2023A-03365-CHC-ROC for its poor workmanship and failure to address the related Directive, effective November 20, 2023, making Complainants’ July 07, 2024, Fund claim submission timely.

Therefore, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge must conclude that Complainants properly received an administrative payout from the Fund.

Thusly, Respondent’s appeal must be denied.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar affirm the Fund’s November 04, 2025, Notice of Award.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Registrar dismiss Respondent’s appeal, with prejudice.

NOTICE

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, January 28, 2026.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

c/o Meredith Bell, Legal Department

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Charles Hover III, Esq., Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General, Counsel for the Registrar

2005 N. Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85004

[email redacted]

A-Z Services General Contracting LLC, Respondent

c/o Jon Thomson, Agent

7514 W. Encinas Ln.

Phoenix, AZ 85043

[email redacted]

Lisa & Robert Benson, Complainants

11787 N. 125th Pl.

Scottsdale, AZ 85259

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff