ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-11979-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-01-16
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Phillip Martin Collins,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Kortsen Pebler, LLC
License No. ROC 328611,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-11979-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 8, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Phillip Martin Collins appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Kortsen Pebler, LLC failed to appear.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice was taken of the Agency Record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Kortsen Pebler, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 328611 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about October 21, 2023, Phillip Martin Collins (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $3,375.00 for architectural drawings for spec homes.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent for its alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
On November 29, 2023, the Registrar issued to the parties at their respective mailing and email addresses of record, a Notice of Hearing that advised the parties of the scheduled hearing date and time of January 8, 2024, at 1:00 p.m.
On November 30, 2023, the Tribunal issued to the parties at their respective email addresses of record, an Order that advised the parties of the Google Meet link for participation in the hearing either by video or phone.
On the date and time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Notwithstanding proper notice, Respondent failed to appear. After a grace period, the matter proceeded to hearing.
Complainant testified that although he holds a general contractor license, the services he provided to Respondent were provided in his individual capacity as a designer and not as a general contractor. Complainant further testified that pursuant to the terms of the parties’ contract, Respondent paid a fifty percent down payment for the drawings which were complete on September 12, 2023. Complainant submitted an invoice to Respondent on October 1, 2023, and Respondent has not paid the balance due as reflected on the invoice. Complainant has not released the drawings because Respondent has not paid the invoice. Complainant testified that he has attempted to call and email Respondent, however, there has been no communication since September 12, 2023.
Respondent failed to appear for hearing and therefore, did not present any controverting evidence.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is 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.”
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
The credible evidence presented at hearing established that Respondent owed a total of $3,375.00 for the architectural drawings provided by Complainant.
Respondent failed to appear, and as such, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the services/materials provided.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $3,375.00 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License Number 328611 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $3,375.00 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $3,375.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case Number 2023-11979.
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, January 16, 2024.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by e-mail to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
[email redacted]
Kortsen Pebler, LLC
[email redacted]
Phillip Martin Collins
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff