ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-01047-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-11-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Anthony Amine Skaff

COMPLAINANT,

Tri-City Earthworks & Labor LLC

DBA: Tri-City Home Improvement Pros

License Nos. ROC 330423 & 317806,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-01047-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 22, 2024

APPEARANCES: Anthony Amine Skaff (Complainant) represented himself. Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). No one appeared on behalf of Tri-City Earthworks & Labor LLC DBA: Tri-City Home Improvement Pros (Respondent).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar’s Exhibits 1 through 8.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In December of 2023, Respondent agreed to remodel Complainant’s home located at 4530 S. Ponderosa Avenue, Prescott, Arizona 86301 (hereinafter “the Prescott home”).

2. Respondent started work on December 13, 2023.

3. Respondent stopped work on December 15, 2023.

4. On January 25, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar), alleging abandonment on the part of Respondent.

5. On the complaint form, Complainant listed his mailing address as, “27128 N. 15th Ln., Phoenix, Arizona, 85085.”

6. The Registrar investigated the complaint and issued a Citation against Respondent’s license for alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 32-1154(A)(1),(3),(22), and Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108(A).

7. On April 29, 2024, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order (Default) and found that Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(1),(3), and (22). The Registrar revoked Respondent’s license effective April 29, 2024.

8. On May 6, 2024, Complainant filed a claim for a payout from the Registrar’s Recovery Fund (Fund). Complainant answered “No” to Question 10, which asked, “Do you currently occupy or intend to occupy the subject property as your primary residence?” See Exhibit 4, Bates 030.

9. On October 13, 2023, Complainant attested through an Affidavit of Property Value that the Prescott home would be used as his non-primary or secondary residence. See Exhibit 4, Bates 039.

10. On August 14, 2024, Dylan Warwick (Mr. Warwick), Legal Assistant II of the Registrar, sent an e-mail message to Complainant inquiring about whether he intended to occupy the residence located on N. 15th Lane in Phoenix, Arizona.

The e-mail message provided:

Hello, I've been reviewing your claim and I just have one question for you. What is your intent with the 27128 N 15th Lane address? Primary residence? Rental? Winter home?

11. Complainant responded to Mr. Warwick’s August 14, 2024 email

the same day, as follows:

27128 N 15th Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85085. is our primary winter home.

The Prescott location where the work was to be done is our summer residence. We will keep both locations as we can not [sic] stand the summer Phoenix weather.

12. Based upon the claim form, the affidavit, and the e-mail correspondence, the Registrar determined that Complainant did not occupy, nor intend to occupy, the Prescott home as his primary residence. Therefore, the Registrar denied Complainant’s request for a payout from the Fund.

13. On August 14, 2024, the Registrar notified Complainant of its determination that he was not eligible for a payout from the Fund.

14. Complainant appealed the ineligibility determination.

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

16. A hearing was held on October 22, 2024.

17. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. The Registrar presented the testimony of Mr. Warwick.

18. Complainant stated that he receives mail at the house in Phoenix and that he uses the Phoenix address for voting purposes. Complainant also contended that it is unconstitutional to deny the claim for the reason that the Prescott home is not his primary residence.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

2. Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish that they are eligible to

recover a payout from the Fund by a preponderance of the evidence.

3. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

4. “In applying a statute, . . . its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”

5. Legislation must also be given a sensible construction that avoids absurd results. State v. Gonzales, 206 Ariz. 469, 471, ¶12 (App. 2003).

6. A person must “actually occupy or intend to occupy the residential property as their primary residence” to be eligible for a payout from the Fund. See A.R.S. § 32-1132(B)(1)(b).

7. Complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he occupied or intended to occupy the Prescott home as his primary residence. The evidence presented at hearing, including Complainant’s own admissions, show that Complainant occupied the Prescott home as his secondary residence. Complainant has failed to establish that he is eligible to a payout from the Fund. Complainant did not present any legal authority or legal argument to support his claim.

8. Consequently, the Registrar appropriately denied Complainant’s Recovery

Fund claim.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Complainant’s appeal is dismissed.

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 12, 2024.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

By: OAH Staff