ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2023A-06894-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Mark LaLiberte,

COMPLAINANT

AZ Pavers LLC

License No. ROC 246645,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-06894-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 20, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Mark LaLiberte and Jennifer LaLiberte

Respondent: Thomas Steiner

Registrar of Contractors: Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover

Erika Hoskins

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing and Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

Registrar of Contractors Exhibits 1-16;

Respondent’s Exhibits C, E1, E2, and E3.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

AZ Pavers LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 246645 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on June 15, 2008.

On or about June 19, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Spencer Nield of A Finer Touch Construction (AFT), a General Contractor who had entered into a contract with Respondent for the installation of pavers at Mark LaLiberte’s (Complainant) residence. The Complaint alleged poor work.

After an investigation a written directive was issued to correct the work. The Directive from the Registrar specified that:

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

Compliant Item 1: (ROC, this is copied from the form notice sent to AZ Pavers) This letter shall serve as written notice of breach (the “Notice”) by AZ Pavers in the performance under the Subcontract. Specifically, as of the date of this Notice, the quality of the work performed by AZ Pavers does not meet the standards as set forth by the Subcontract or the manufacturer’s installation specifications. Included in the scope of work contained in the Subcontract, AZ Pavers was to install backyard and front entry pavers specified as 24” x 24” Belgard Quartziti porcelain pavers. The scope of work specifically states the work was to include “leveling sand, disc spacer, and high performance 50 polymeric sand to joints.” Additionally, Belgard’s manufacturer’s installation specifications state the porcelain pavers should never be installed with porcelain to porcelain contact and specifically calls for 4mm spacing in between pavers using 4mm plastic disc spacers. In fact, the installation instructions repeatedly specify the use of 4mm plastic disc spacers on numerous pages and locations. AZ Pavers failed to follow the scope of work contained in the Subcontract and Belgard’s installation specifications by installing the porcelain pavers without the proper spacing and without the use of the plastic disc spacers. Instead, the pavers were installed in a manner that resulted in the pavers contacting each other. This, in addition to AZ Pavers using inadequate sub grade material and compaction as required per Belgard’s installation specifications, has resulted in movement of the pavers, as evidenced by both noise when walked across and chipping of the pavers. Over the past six months, AFT has attempted to help resolve the improper installation by providing AZ Pavers multiple attempts to correct the work based upon promises from AZ Pavers to do whatever is necessary to correct the issues. Attempts have been made to remove certain pavers and reinstall, along with attempting to add polymeric sand between pavers, which have little to no space. While these corrective measures have helped in limited areas, there are many areas that are still problematic.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The respondent shall correct the porcelain pavers that are not installed per the manufacturer’s installation specifications and gaps that are not uniform by appropriate means.

After one compliance period extension Respondent did not perform any corrective work.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation, and an administrative hearing was held. In their Decision, Administrative Law Judge Amy M. Haley considered all arguments and concluded that Complainant established Respondent had, in relevant part, violated the statutes as charged in the citation. The Administrative Law Judge recommended a four day suspension of Respondent’s license.

On or about September 6, 2024, the Registrar issued its Final Decision, adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision in full.

Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (the Fund) to recover the cost of completing or repairing the project. As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different contractors that Complainant had received to correct the project.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s compensable actual damages were $30,000.00. In reviewing Complainant’s claim, the Registrar determined the following:

Original Contract Price: $60,130.00

Change Order -$12,195.85

Less payment on contract: -$62,440.23

Total unpaid balance: $0.00

Total Compensable Bid Amount: $38,602.50

Less the unpaid balance on contract: -$0.00

Compensable “Actual Damages”: $30,000.00

Statutory maximum payout amount is $30,000.00. Therefore the damages equals $30,000.00.

Respondent requested a hearing. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on August 20, 2025.

Erika Hoskins testified for the Registrar that Complainant was eligible and followed all of the steps required to receive an award from the Fund. She testified in support of the documents and calculation provided in the exhibits. She testified in support of Complainant being entitled to a $30,000.00 award.

Jennifer LaLiberte testified on behalf of Complainant. On questioning, she testified that AFT had never made a claim to Complainant that money was still owed to AFT on the project. AFT was paid in full for the entire project, which included any change orders.

Thomas Steiner testified for Respondent that AFT owed Respondent $16,535.85 for change orders. Respondent argued that Complainants “assume” the change order was paid, but Respondent did not believe it was paid and as such Complainants should not be credited that amount and the Fund award amount should be so adjusted. In support of this claim, Respondent referenced an arbitration award filed in or around May 2025 in favor of AFT as against Respondent for a total amount of $105,271.75. Respondent stated the award noted the $16,000.00 owed by AFT to Respondent.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

An award from the residential contractors’ recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor’s violation. Actual damages:

1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.

2. Must be established by bids supplied by or the value of work performed by a person that is licensed pursuant to this chapter if the person is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter.

Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed 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.”

In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.

Respondent argued that because Respondent was owed approximately $16,000.00 by AFT, Complainant had not paid the $16,000.00 toward the contract and should not be credited the amount toward the Fund award. However, Complainant demonstrated through submitted evidence that AFT was paid in full through the home equity line of credit (HELOC) loan Complainant used to fund the project. Additionally, Respondent submitted evidence that documented a judgement awarded to AFT against Respondent in which the unpaid $16,000.00 was credited to Respondent. Therefore, Respondent has, in fact, effectively been paid the $16,000.00. Even if Respondent had not been paid by AFT for the change order nor credited the amount in the judgement, that was a dispute between AFT and Respondent and not appropriately brought against Complainant in its claim for an award from the Fund.

The preponderance of the evidence established that the award provided by the Fund accurately reflected Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $30,000.00.

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 $30,000.00.

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, September 23, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Charles Hover

Assistant Attorney General

[email redacted]

Mark LaLiberte

[email redacted]

AZ Pavers, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff