ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-01977-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Larry Aimo Green,

COMPLAINANT,

European Granite and Remodeling LLC

License No. ROC 300754,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-01977-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 25, 2025 at 9:00am

APPEARANCES: Complainant Larry Aimo Green on his own behalf. Marian Bujor on behalf of Respondent European Granite and Remodeling, LLC. Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover II with Arizona Registrar of Contractors witness Madelyn Hayes.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Amended State’s Exhibits 1 through 12. Respondent Exhibits 1 through 6.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) issued License No. ROC 300754 to European Granite and Remodeling, LLC (“Respondent”).

On or about February 18, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Larry Aimo Green (“Complainant”) alleging, among other things, abandonment and poor work (“the workmanship complaint”). Respondent had contracted with Complainant for a kitchen remodeling project.

As a result of the workmanship complaint, on May 8, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(c); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) - Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. On July 8, 2024, an administrative hearing was held. In the July 23, 2024 Decision, Administrative Law Judge Stone considered Respondent’s arguments and concluded that Respondent violated the three charged provisions of this State’s contracting laws and recommended that Respondent’s contracting license be suspended for a period of five (5) days and Respondent pay a $500.00 civil penalty.”

On or about August 20, 2024, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order affirming the violations and imposing a $500.00 civil penalty.

On or about October 22, 2024, Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“the Fund”) to recover the cost of performing the corrective work and completing the project.

As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different contractors that Complainant had received to correct the project. The bids from licensed contractors are detailed as follows:

Bid #1 from Modern Concepts

Bid total - $16,500.00 and itemized:

Countertop – Kitchen

Countertop – Kitchen Island

Backsplash

Relocate outlets at backsplash

Bid #2 from Tuhavi Corporation

Bid total - $16,049.00 and itemized:

Preparation

Disconnect gas cooktop, dishwasher, and undermount sink and faucet

Remove the main countertops

Install drywall on the backsplash, trim around the window unit

Install quartz countertops and full backsplash

Reinstall gas cooktop, dishwasher, and undermount sink and faucet

Touch up scratched/damaged stain finish on upper cabinets

On May 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s actual damages were $12,849.00. Respondent requested a hearing, believing the payout was too high. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative award. On June 9, 2025, the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on August 25, 2025 at 9:00am.

Hearing Evidence

The Written Directive from the Registrar specified the following in pertinent part:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A). ...

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

Compliance Item: 2 - he took measurements himself and when the granite arrived it was almost 2 in too short on backsplash

Investigator’s Observation: Backsplash does not reach the bottom of the cabinets. Wood framing can be seen behind. At the window, there is a 1 inch difference between the two sides from the window to the backsplash edge.

Compliance Item: 3 - the backsplash was not level, so they proceeded to cut into the dry wall and it is still not level

Investigator’s Observation: The existing backsplash drywall was removed, no drywall was reinstalled behind backsplash. This is an industry standard. Drywall is touching wood framing at the sink window and 1/2 " gap between the wood and the backsplash at the far South corner. Backsplash is pushing into wall sheetrock adjacent to it. Backsplash should be removed and drywall installed behind it.

Compliance Item: 4 - receptacles were cut too big and left large gaps

Investigator’s Observation: With receptacle faceplates installed, a gap can be seen at the edge, holes were cut too large.

Compliance Item: 5 - they scratched my cabinets while installing and now they are damaged

Investigator’s Observation: Cabinets near stove are scratched on both sides.

Compliance Item: 6 - drilled holes in the island that were too big

Investigator’s Observation: This piece of countertop has since been replaced. There are no holes cut for receptacles.

Compliance Item: 10 - no written contract, check cashed that listed remaining balance due and he cashed it

Investigator’s Observation: No contract was provided or signed, invoice shown at JSI does not meet minimum elements of contract.

Compliance Item: 12 - job still incomplete he said he would have cabinet company come lower cabinets to fit his backsplash that was too short Investigator’s Observation: Cabinets have not been lowered at time of JSI. Complainant states he does not want cabinets to be lowered but rather the backsplash done correctly. There are large gaps around the entire perimeter of the backsplash.

Madelyn Hayes, Legal Assistant and Claims Reviewer for the Fund, testified that she reviewed the Complaint, the Written Directive, the Administrative Law Judge Decision regarding the underlying Complaint, the parties’ contract, the payments made by Complainant to Respondent, the claim Complainant filed with Respondent’s bonding company, the deed to the property, and bids/costs and payments 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. Hayes determined that upon her review that Complainant had satisfied the eligibility requirements for a payment from the Fund and the parties stipulated to this fact, at hearing.

Ms. Hayes testified that her calculation of actual damages took into account the contract price of $12,500.00 and the payments made toward the contract price in the amount of $9,000.00, and concluded that there was a remaining balance on the contract in the amount of $3,500.00.

Ms. Hayes calculated Complainant’s actual damages by subtracting the amount Complainant still owed toward the parties’ contract ($3,500.00) from the amount deemed necessary to repair and/or complete the project per Bid #2 ($16,049.00), and arrived at the amount of $12,549.00.

Ms. Hayes reviewed the documentation submitted by Complainant with a Registrar Investigator, and this Investigator concurred that a $12,549.00 award from the Fund was appropriate in this case.

Marian Bujor testified on behalf of Respondent. Ms. Bujor testified that only the backsplash needed to corrected, not the countertops or anything else. Ms. Bujor testified that based on Respondent’s estimate the corrective work would only cost $4,150.00 and that was the amount Respondent believed Complainant is owed.

Complainant testified that the intention for his kitchen was to have all of the quartz slabs matching from the countertops and the backsplash. Complainant argued that every two years, the dye lots and shades for quartz changes and that the material will not match if just the backsplash was corrected.

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.

Respondent, having contested the amount of the proposed payout from the Fund, 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 means “proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

Respondent had an opportunity to correct and complete its work following the Written Directive from the Registrar and failed to do so.

After review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the award proposed by the Fund accurately reflected Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $12,549.00.

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 $12,549.00.

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, September 9, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Larry Aimo Green

160 N Sharon Rd

Vail, AZ 85641

[email redacted]

European Granite and Remodeling LLC

1329 N 29th Ave Ste 18

Phoenix, AZ 85009

[email redacted]

Charles S. Hover, III

Office of the Attorney General

2005 N Central Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85004-1592

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff