ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-11927-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-13
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Steven Michael Kortsen-Pebler II,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Framer Construction Sanchez LLC
License No. ROC 343300,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-11927-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 27, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Steven Michael Korsten-Pebler II.
For Respondent: No appearance.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Patricia Schutte.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Framer Construction Sanchez LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 343300, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on February 19, 2023.
On or about July 7, 2023, Steven Michael Kortsen-Pebler II (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, to build a new home.
On or about May 16, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Patricia Schutte, who investigated the complaint and issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent.
No work was completed pursuant to the directive.
On May 1, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(a); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on May 14, 2024.
On June 3, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for July 19, 2024.
The Registrar mailed the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.
Following a series of continuances, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to May 27, 2025, and advised of how to connect to the hearing virtually.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be further continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 3, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 343300 was suspended on February 28, 2025, for non-renewal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the order setting the continued hearing date to Respondent at its email address of record.
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainant of his right to prosecute his complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent departed from or disregarded plans or specifications in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license. . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for 5 days Respondent’s License No. 343300.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 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, June 13, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Patricia Schuette
[email redacted]
Michael W. Thal
LANG THAL KING & HANSON PC
[email redacted]
Steven Michael Kortsen-Pebler II
22424 South Ellsworth Loop Road, #1822
Queen Creek, AZ 85142
Framer Construction Sanchez LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff