ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-06076-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Edward A Veloz,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Artistic Landscape Solutions LLC

ROC License No. 318553,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-06076-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 22, 2025 at 1:00 PM.

APPEARANCES: Barry Aylstock, Esq. appeared on behalf of Edward. A. Veloz (“Complainant”). No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Artistic Landscape Solutions LLC (“Respondent”). John Peru appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the referring agency’s attached administrative file, and Minute Entries Granting Continuance dated October 17, 2023, December 18, 2023, February 21, 2024, April 24, 2024, June 25, 2024, September 09, 2024, December 06, 2024, January 20, 2025, and July 03, 2025, 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 March 26, 2018, the Registrar issued License No. 318553 Specialty Dual CR-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems contracting license to Respondent. The license has been renewed through March 31, 2026. Gregory Bodell is listed as the Qualifying Party and Member on the license. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 15801 S. 48th St., #2118 Phoenix, Arizona 85048. Respondent has an active $6,750.00 surety bond on the license issued by Old Republic Surety Company, effective February 26, 2018. The license has been disciplined by the Registrar one (1) prior occasion, and has had one (1) other complaint settled or otherwise resolved against it. Currently, the license has two (2) open complaints against it; one of which is presumed to be related to this matter.

On May 26, 2023, the Registrar received a 5-item complaint from Complainant against Respondent’s License No. 318553 alleging poor work of a $27,385.00 backyard remodeling project. Attached to the complaint, Complainant included a brief summery explaining that he was not provided a written contract by Respondent, an invoice dated March 20, 2023, and proof of payment to Respondent for the work performed. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2023-06076 and assigned the matter to John Peru (“Investigator Peru”) for investigation.

On May 31, 2023, Investigator Peru issued a Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on June 30, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

Respondent did not provide a written reply to the underlying complaint, or request to inspect the complained-of work.

On June 30, 2023, Investigator Peru inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was not present. Investigator Peru also reviewed the contract-related correspondence between the parties, and took 21 photographs of the project site. When he was finished, Investigator Peru drafted his Inspection Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Peru substantiated all five (5) of Complainant’s complaint items in Complaint No. 2023-06076, based on his firsthand observations. Specifically, Investigator Peru determined that complaint items 1-5 fell below the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards and required correction and/or completion by Respondent.

On July 11, 2023, Investigator Peru issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent because he substantiated all of Complainant’s complaint allegation(s) against Respondent. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on July 28, 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) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On or about July 28, 2023, Investigator Peru forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Pencil Cite.

On July 31, 2023, Investigator Peru issued a Warning Letter to Respondent to advise that Respondent’s work on the underlying project required possession of an R-11 license that Respondent did not possess during the relevant time period, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16), which could result in discipline against Respondent’s license including suspension or revocation.

On August 11, 2023, 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-b), and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until August 26, 2023, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On August 26, 2023, the Registrar received a timely Answer on behalf of Respondent whereby Counsel provided an alleged overview of the parties’ history prior to the filing of Complaint No. 2023-06076, and offered that Mr. Bodell had not received the Directive because he was on vacation out of town July 09, 2023, through July 27, 2023. Per Counsel, Mr. Bodell reported to the jobsite on July 31, 2023, his crew was permitted to make repairs. The following day, however, Complainant asked Respondent to perform work outside the scope of the Directive, and was asked to leave when the crew refused.

On August 28, 2023, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on October 24, 2023. Per the September 08, 2023, Notice of Hearing the issues to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following alleged statutory violations:

Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – A.A.C. R4-9-108(a)

Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – A.A.C. R4-9-108(b)

Charge 3: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

From October 17, 2023, to July 03, 2025, the matter was continued per request of the parties. Per request of Complainant, the matter was set for continued hearing on August 22, 2025.

On July 10, 2025, OAH received Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed Counsel for Respondent, noting Respondent had been provided with participation information for the continued hearing scheduled August 22, 2025. On July 14, 2025, a Minute Entry was issued granting the withdrawal, and instructing Complainant to copy Respondent directly on any and all future filings in 2023A-06076-CHC-ROC. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

Hearing Evidence

Complainant testified on his own behalf and called Investigator Peru as a witness. Despite being afforded a ten (10) minute grace period, Respondent failed to appear or submit a Motion to Continue. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:

Complainant owns residential property located at 4386 N. 153rd Dr. Goodyear, Arizona 85395.

On or about March 14, 2023, the parties entered into a $27,385.00 backyard renovation agreement, including the installation of travertine tiles, a playground, and an entertainment wall.

Complainant paid Respondent for the contract in full.

Respondent did not schedule or perform any corrective work on substantiated complaint items 1-5 during the Directive’s compliance period. Respondent did not request an extension of the Directive’s compliance period.

License No. 318553 was active and in good standing with the Registrar between July 11, 2023, and July 28, 2023, and was the appropriate type of license to address substantiated complaint items 1-3 and 5. In order to address substantiated complaint item 4, Respondent was required to hire an appropriately licensed subcontractor or enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant.

Respondent took no action to address the Directive by the end of its compliance period.

On or about July 28, 2023, Complainant contacted Investigator Peru to provide notice of Respondent’s noncompliance with the Directive, and to request that the matter be escalated to the Registrar’s legal department.

At no point during the Directive’s compliance period, or anytime thereafter, did Respondent request an extension thereof, allege a denial of access to the project site, or accuse Complainant of attempting to expand the scope of the Directive to the Registrar.

Additional Evidence

Investigator Peru testified that a permit from the local building authority was required in order for Respondent to perform any corrective work on substantiated complaint item 4, and that Respondent should have been cited for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

Investigator Peru testified that because electrical work was clearly outlined in the scope of work for the underlying project, and Respondent did not have a valid Residential Electric CR-11 contracting license when the agreement was entered into or underlying work performed, Respondent should have also been cited for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16).

Investigator Peru testified that because Respondent did not issue a formal contract to Complainant for the underlying project, Respondent should have also been cited for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(12); 32-1158(A).

Investigator Peru testified that Mr. Bodell’s out-of-town vacation for a bulk of the Directive’s compliance period is immaterial, and that Respondent knew or should have known about the Registrar’s issuance of the corrective work order because it was issued electronically prior to Mr. Bodell’s alleged departure.

Closing Arguments

Complainant declined to provide a closing argument.

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.

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

The Notice of Hearing the Registrar mailed to Respondent’s address of record is sufficient, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing in this matter. Because the Registrar mailed all correspondence to Respondent in the same manner and failed to receive any mail returned as undeliverable, Respondent is deemed to have received all correspondence regarding this matter from the Registrar as well.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses 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.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.”

Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a-b) requires that “[a] contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner,” and that “a contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] holder of a license may not fail to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. The Registrar has the authority to issue license discipline under this provision, including summary suspension, revocation, or imposing a civil penalty or recovery fund award.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E) holds, in pertinent parts, that the ROC may “[i]mpose a civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars on a contractor for each violation. The failure by the licensee to pay any civil penalty imposed results in the automatic revocation of the license thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty. It also holds that no future license may be issued to an entity consisting of a person who is associated with the contractor, unless payment of any outstanding civil penalty is tendered.”

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.”

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. “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.

The material facts in the case at bar are not in dispute.

It is undisputed that the parties had a backyard remodel construction contract, which Complainant paid Respondent for in full. It is also undisputed that some of the work Respondent performed on the project failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards, and exceeded the scope of its CR-21 contracting license. It is also undisputed that Respondent did not comply with the Registrar’s Directive, or request an extension thereof. The record also reflects that Respondent never provided the Registrar with proof that it filed for a building permit to remediate complaint item 4, or hired a subcontractor to perform corrective work on the complaint item. It is further undisputed that Respondent did not tender a refund or otherwise enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant by July 28, 2023.

Therefore, the only remaining issue to address is whether Respondent raised sufficient justification or excuse for failing to take action to satisfy the Registrar’s Directive prior to the expiration of the corrective order’s compliance period, or enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant. These are an affirmative defenses that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act in any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. Being on vacation, regardless of reception availability, is irrelevant. Respondent knew or should have known of the existence of Complaint No. 2023-06076 as of May 31, 2023. The Registrar issued multiple correspondences to Respondent during the pendency of its investigation. Most notably, Respondent’s absence from this administrative proceeding is also a factor in aggravation, as it evinces the licensee’s unwillingness to be regulated by the Registrar.

Because Complainant has established Respondent’s statutory violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ -1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a-b), and 32-1154(A)(22) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline ROC License No. 318553.

Complainant may petition the Registrar’s Recovery Fund for financial recompense in this matter.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that on the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Respondent Artistic Landscape Solutions LLC, ROC License No. 318553, shall be suspended for seven (7) days based on its violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and 32-1154(A)(22).

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum total of $200.00 (two hundred dollars) as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the Final Decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

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, September 03, 2025.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

c/o Legal Department

Registrar of Contractors

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Barry Aylstock, Esq.

Faith Law, PLC, Counsel for Complainant

1360 N. Bullard Ave., Ste. 201

Goodyear, AZ 85395

[email redacted]

Artistic Landscape Solutions, LLC, Respondent

c/o Gregory Bodell, Agent

15801 S. 48th St., #2118

Phoenix, AZ 85048

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff