ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-00297-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Debra Mary Schaefer

COMPLAINANT,

Phillips Woodworking, LTD.

License No. ROC 330247,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-00297-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 5, 2025 with the record held open until September 12, 2025, for the sole purpose of allowing the parties to submit post-hearing exhibits.

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover III appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar”). Debra Mary Schaefer (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of herself. David Phillips appeared on behalf of Phillips Woodworking, LTD (hereinafter “Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar’s Exhibits 1 through 13. Complainant’s Exhibit A.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant and Respondent entered into a residential remodeling for the amount of $23,472.00.

2. Complainant later filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging poor work on the part of Respondent.

3. The Registrar assigned the complaint to John Smith, an investigator for the Registrar (hereinafter “Investigator Smith”).

4. On February 29, 2024, Investigator Edwards issued a Directive requiring that provided, in relevant part, as follows:

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

.....................................

Complaint Item 4a: Kitchen, Laundry rm, bar cabinets: - David suggested the larger drawer pulls is what is popular now and said he would put a dowel in the screw hole, sand it, then stain it, and we wouldn’t see it but we do!!

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The respondent’s work included refinishing the cabinets. Repair of any preexisting holes, or incorrectly drilled holes, is considered to be part of surface preparation. Cabinet doors and drawers in kitchen, laundry room, and bar area, have unfilled and/or poorly filled holes. All holes are approximately 3/16 to 1/4 inch diameter. Some holes are filled with dowels with poorly matched stain/finish. Some holes are filled with just poorly matched putty. Some holes are just unfilled. . . .

.....................................

Complaint Item 7: Guest bathroom vanity panel above door and door are not lined up off askew. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The guest bathroom vanity has a total of five panels; one door, three drawers, and one drawer front directly below the vanity top. The faces of those five panels are not flush / not in the same plane. The hinge side of the door protrudes 5/16 inch past the face of the upper drawer front. Drawers at the left are flush with the face of the upper drawer front. At least one contributing factor is the lack of bumpers on the door and drawers. . . .

.....................................

5. Respondent failed to comply with the Directive regarding Complaint Items 4a and 7.

6. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Complainant had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (3) – 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) (14) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (22). Respondent filed an answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

7. A hearing was held on September 5, 2025.

8. After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter “ALJ”) issued a recommended decision finding that Respondent had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (3) – 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) (14), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (22).

9. The ALJ recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended.

10. The Registrar adopted the ALJ’s recommended decision.

11. On February 27, 2025, Complainant filed a claim for a payout from the Registrar’s Recovery Fund (claim).

12. The claim was reviewed by the Registrar’s Legal Assistant, Meredith Bell. Ms. Bell inquired with Investigator Smith as to whether the bids submitted by Complainant were excessive. Investigator Smith reviewed the bids dated May 9, 2024 and June 5, 2025 that Complainant submitted from Home Depot. Investigator Smith notified Ms. Bell that the bids were excessive because the reface of exterior surfaces of cabinets, the installation of new drawer boxes, new toe kicks, new crown molding, new door hardware (knobs and pulls), a corner lazy susan, new cabinets, cabinet re-facing, veneer on the rest of the cabinets, and cabinet exterior surfaces were not required to correct Respondent’s poor work. Thereafter, Complainant requested a new bid from Home Depot dated June 19, 2025. The June 19, 2025 bid did not include the excessive items. Ms. Bell requested that Investigator Smith review the bid. Investigator Smith determined that the revised bid was correctly limited to doors and drawers.

13. Ms. Bell reviewed Complainant’s claim and determined that Complainant paid Respondent in full for the construction project. Ms. Bell determined that Complainant’s actual damages was the equivalent of the total amount of the June 19, 2025 Home Depot bid: $23,472.00.

14. On June 25, 2025, the Registrar notified Complainant that she would be awarded $23,472.00 from the recovery fund.

15. Respondent requested a hearing regarding the determination.

16. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

17. A hearing was held on September 5, 2025.

18. At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of Ms. Bell. David Phillips and John Valenzuela testified on behalf of Respondent.

19. At hearing, Mr. Phillips contended that the award amount was excessive.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A) provides that “[a]n award from the fund is limited to the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of the contractor's violation but shall not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines. . . .” 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.” 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.”

After review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the award provided by the fund is an accurate reflection of Complainants’ actual damages. The award appears to properly remedy the workmanship violations for which Respondent was responsible. In the absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence that the bid utilized was excessive, the Tribunal finds that the bid was, in fact, appropriate.

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 $23,472.00.

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, October 2, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Debra Mary Schaefer

[email redacted]

Phillips Woodworking, LTD.

[email redacted]

Charles Hover III

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Arizona Attorney General

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff