ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2023A-11276-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Spencer Wilde,

COMPLAINANT,

Stephen Thomas Latimore

DBA: CJ Latimore Construction

License No. ROC 118118,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2023A-11276-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 24, 2025 at 9:00am

APPEARANCES: Complainant Spencer Wilde appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Michael R. Ellsworth represented Respondent CJ Latimore Construction with Stephen Thomas Latimore as witness. Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors with witness Doug Ulmer.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department Exhibits 1 through 16. Complainant Exhibits 1 through 8. Respondent Exhibits A through B.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) issued License No. ROC 118118 to Stephen Thomas Latimore dba CJ Latimore Construction (“Respondent”).

On or about October 1, 2020, Spencer Wilde (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent to build a home for $650,133.00. Complainant paid approximately $750,000.00 to Respondent for the project. Complainant discovered issues with the roof and tried to resolve issues with Respondent.

On or about September 27, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging, among other things, poor work with Respondent’s contracted scope of work (“the workmanship complaint”).

As a result of the workmanship complaint, on April 24, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) - Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. On August 29, 2024 and November 5, 2024, an administrative hearing was held over two days. In the November 19, 2024 Decision, Administrative Law Judge Stone considered Respondent’s arguments and concluded that Respondent violated all four of the charged provisions of this State’s contracting laws and recommended that Respondent’s contracting license be suspended for a period of three (3) days and Respondent pay a $500.00 civil penalty.

On or about December 6, 2024, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order affirming the violations and imposing a $500.00 civil penalty.

Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“the Fund”) to recover the cost of performing the corrective work and completing the project.

As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different contractors that Complainant had received to correct the project. The bids from the licensed contractors are detailed as follows:

Bid #1 from Slade Roofing in the total amount of $46,440.76.

Bid #2 from Mountain Roof Repair & Renovation, LLC in the total amount of $33,236.00.

On August 22, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s actual damages were $24,236.00. Respondent requested a hearing, believing the payout was too high. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative award. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on October 24, 2025 at 9:00am.

Hearing Evidence

The Extension Written Directive from Registrar Investigator Miles Crosby specified the following in pertinent part:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A). ...

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

Compliance Item: 17 – Roof tiles have holes in them are loose in places

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant is referencing the Asphalt Shingles. Multiple areas do not meet standards. Nails and screws left on the roof. Lack of adhesion or use of roofing adhesive products.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 18 – Roof tiles are not lapped correctly

Investigator’s Observation: Although there are applications for different styles of valley roofing, the use of woven valleys is not recommended with architectural shingles.

. . . .

At the Compliance Inspection, the following was determined by Investigator Crosby, in pertinent part:

Compliance Item: 17

Compliance Observation: Roof was not corrected by appropriate means.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 18

Compliance Observation: The Roof was not corrected by appropriate means.

. . . .

Investigator Crosby determined that Respondent was not in compliance with the Written Directive.

Doug Ulmer, Legal Assistant and Claims Reviewer for the Fund, testified that he reviewed the Complaint, the Written Directive, the Compliance Jobsite findings, the Administrative Law Judge Decision regarding the underlying Complaint, the parties’ contract, the payments made by Complainant to Respondent, the claim Complainant filed with Respondent’s bonding company, the deed to the property, and bids/costs and payments submitted by Complainant for repair/completion of the project, in determining that Complainant was eligible to file a claim with the Fund and in calculating Complainant’s actual damages.

Mr. Ulmer determined that upon his review, that Complainant had satisfied the eligibility requirements for a payment from the Fund.

Mr. Ulmer testified that his calculation of actual damages took into account the contract price of $650,133.00 and the payments made toward the contract price in the amount of $650,133.00, and concluded that the contract was paid in full with no remaining balance.

Mr. Ulmer calculated Complainant’s actual damages by subtracting the amount Complainant still owed toward the parties’ contract ($0) from the amount deemed necessary to repair and/or complete the project per Bid #2 ($33,236.00), and subtracted money received from the bond company ($9,000.00) and arrived at the amount of $24,236.00.

Mr. Ulmer reviewed the documentation submitted by Complainant with Investigator Crosby, and Investigator Crosby concurred that a $24,236.00 award from the Fund was appropriate in this case.

Stephen Latimore testified on behalf of Respondent CJ Latimore Construction. Mr. Latimore argued that only Written Directive complaint items 17 and 18 are at issue here and that the bid accepted included roof work that did not need to be redone. Mr. Latimore testified that the $9,000.00 amount that Complainant received from his bond company was enough to perform the corrective work. In fact, Mr. Latimore obtained a bid for the corrective work from KGJ Roofing and the estimate for the repair work totaled $6,925.98.

Mr. Ulmer testified that in order to repair the roof per Written Directive complaint items 17 and 18, the contractor needed to remove, replace, and reorient shingles to make the needed repairs. In addition, Mr. Ulmer testified that a contractor will not warranty its work unless they can make the repairs they believe are needed to have a properly installed roof.

Complainant testified that he could not wait around to make the necessary repairs on his home. In September 2025, Complainant received a new bid for the corrective work from KGJ Roofing and the estimate for the repair work totaled $36,615.28. Complainant contracted with KGJ Roofing to make the repairs.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, having contested the amount of the proposed payout from the Fund, 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 means “proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

Respondent had an opportunity to correct and complete its work following the Written Directive from the Registrar and failed to do so.

After review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the award proposed by the Fund accurately reflected Complainant’s actual damages and that the bid was appropriate to perform the corrective work properly. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $24,236.00.

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 $24,236.00.

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, November 13, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Michael Ellsworth, Esq.

Riggs Ellsworth & Porter PLC

240 N. White Mountain Rd., Ste. A

Show Low, AZ 85901

[email redacted]

Spencer Wilde

4220 W. Red Twig Ln

Show low, AZ 85901

[email redacted]

Charles Hover III, Assistant Attorney General

2005 N Central Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85004-1592

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff