ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-01421-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Alyssa Culbertson,

COMPLAINANT

R P M Masonry and General Contracting Inc

License No. ROC 168993,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-01421-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 13, 2026

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin represented the Registrar of Contractors with witness Tedi Quezada. Complainant Alyssa Culbertson on behalf of herself. Ronald Polder, Qualifying Party, on behalf of R P M Masonry and General Contracting with witnesses Brian Anderson and Mike Collins.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibits 1 through 9 submitted by the Registrar of Contractors admitted. Administrative notice was taken of Appendix A and B.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) issued License No. 168993 to Respondent.

On or about January 17, 2022, Alyssa Culbertson (Complainant) entered into a contract with R P M Masonry and General Contracting Inc (Respondent) to build a new home for $659,685.00.

On or about February 13, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging, among other things, poor work (the workmanship complaint).

As a result of the workmanship complaint, the Registrar issued a Citation on June 21, 2024, against Respondent charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108, and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. An administrative hearing was held on November 1, 2024. In the Decision, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson considered Respondent’s arguments and concluded that Complainant established that Respondent failed to correct five of the Compliance items without valid justification and thereby violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and (22). It was recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for three days.

On November 26, 2024, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order affirming the violations and imposing a $500.00 civil penalty.

Complainant thereafter filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (the Fund) to recover the cost of completing or repairing the project. As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from three different licensed contractors that she had obtained to correct the project. The bids were detailed as follows:

Bid #1 from Livefree Carpentry & Home Improvements in the total amount of $36,491.44.

Bid #2 from Tesano Contracting in the total amount of $78,430.00.

Bid #3 from Jack of All Trades AZ in the total amount of $34,450.00.

On January 8, 2026, the Registrar’s Legal Assistant Ms. Tedi Quezada emailed Investigator Chris Allison asking to review the bids as “some items appear excessive.”

On January 12, 2026, Investigator Allison confirmed that “[t]here were some excessive times on the estimates. I have reviewed the estimates and it was easier for me to make notes directly on them. Attached are the estimates with my review notes.”

Investigator Allison crossed out several items from Bid #1 and #2 because they were “Not on” on Written Directive and/or because “Need more info”. The last review note for Bid #1 was recorded, in pertinent part, as follows: “This estimate/ bid does not address the majority of the items not resolved at the compliance inspection. It however, does include things that were not”.

On February 20, 2026, the Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s actual damages were $30,000.00, which was calculated using compensable bid amount of $34,450.00 from Bid #3 estimate.

On March 7, 2026, Respondent requested a hearing, believing the payout was too high and relied on unsupported repair estimates among other reasons. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative payout. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.

On May 6, 2026, Legal Assistant II Tedi Quezada reached out to Investigator Allison for additional review of Bid #3 for hearing purposes. Investigator Allison replied: “I do not see any issues with the scope of work on the bid/estimate when comparing to the compliance job notes.”

A hearing was held on May 13, 2026.

Hearing Evidence

The Registrar conducted an initial jobsite inspection on March 29, 2024. Investigator Allison inspected the seventeen (17) items from the Complaint and verified that approximately eleven (11) items constituted poor work or were incomplete. The Register issued a Written Directive to Respondent and the deadline to comply with the Written Directive was extended to June 7, 2024, at Respondent’s request.

The Compliance Jobsite Inspection General Notes specified the following in pertinent part:

COMPLIANCE FINDINGS:

. . . .

Compliance Item: 5 - paint job poorly done in areas of the home

Investigator’s Observation: Not all the paint overspray was removed off the wood components of the home. There is also area where drywall dust was not cleaned as part of correction. This item is not in compliance with the written directive.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 7 - holes in ceilings and walls around light fixtures

Investigator’s Observation: Only area not corrected is exposed drywall screws in the garage. This item is not in compliance with the written directive.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 8 - drywall not completed and already cracking in many spots

Investigator’s Observation: The drywall was completed. Some of the corrected areas were not sanded smooth prior to painting. Some areas around logs were done poorly. The wall bump out at the back door is not within workmanship tolerances. This is causing the reveal against the door trim to taper. This item is not in compliance with the written directive.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 9 - windows not sealed/caulked into wall properly. Big gaps seen

Investigator’s Observation: not all windows were caulked correctly. The reveal onthe frames of some windows were not equal. This item is not in compliance with the written directive.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 12 - fascia on base of home never completed

Investigator’s Observation: The Fascia was installed. However, the fitment and staining was poor. This work was not done in a professional manner and is not in compliance with the written directive.

. . . .

Compliance Item: 15 - Stair finishing - loose tread

Investigator’s Observation: The stairs were corrected. However, some of the caulking is sloppy and caulk is smudged on the walls. This item in not in compliance with the written directive.

Investigator Allison testified that Respondent was not in compliance with the Written Directive and several items remained unresolved.

Ms. Quezada testified that she reviewed the Complaint, Written Directive, Compliance Jobsite Inspection findings, the Administrative Law Judge Decision regarding the underlying Complaint, the parties’ contract, the payments made by Complainant, the letter from Respondent’s bonding company, the deed to the property, and bids 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

Ms. Quezada testified that her calculation of actual damages took into account the total contract price and that the contract was paid in full with no remaining balance. Ms. Quezada calculated Complainant’s actual damages by subtracting the amount Complainant still owed toward the parties’ contract ($0) from the amount deemed necessary to repair/complete the project per Bid #3 ($34,450.00) and arrived at the amount of $30,000.00.

Ms. Quezada testified that she reviewed the Written Directive from the Registrar that had been issued and also consulted with Investigator Allison on two separate occasions prior to the hearing and concluded that Bid #3 was the lowest and most accurate estimate of outstanding repair/completion work.

Respondent testified that the estimate providers must have been “coached” by Complainant and argued that the only items that needed repair would cost no more than about $7,000.00. Respondent’s witnesses agreed with his testimony that the work required, under no circumstances, could be close to $30,000.00 and that it could be completed in as little as around $4,000.00.

Notwithstanding Respondent’s contention, on cross-examination, it was revealed that witness Mr. Anderson was a roofer and could not have provided an accurate and/reliable estimate in this matter as the work was beyond his scope of expertise. In addition, it was demonstrated that witness Mr. Collins was not named on any license issued by the Registrar and therefore not recognized by the Registrar as a contractor. Moreover, it was undisputed that the witnesses did not provide written estimates to the Registrar for review during the course of its investigation.

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.

In this case, Respondent requested a hearing challenging the Fund payout, and consequently, Respondent bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed award is improper or contrary to law.

“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.”

Respondent had an opportunity to correct the faulty work following the written directive from the Registrar and failed to do so.

After review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that Respondent has not sustained its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed award is improper or contrary to law. Complainant is eligible for an award from the Fund and the award proposed by the Fund accurately reflects Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $30,000.00.

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 $30,000.00.

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, June 2, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Alyssa Culbertson

[email redacted]

R P M Masonry and General Contracting Inc.

[email redacted]

Mona Baskin Esq.

Office of the Attorney General

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff