ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-02309-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Irv Arenberg,

COMPLAINANT

Durango Masonry and Tile LLC

License No. ROC 337830,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-02309-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 3, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Irving Arenberg

Respondent: Gregory Link

Registrar of Contractors: Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover

Erika Hoskins

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing and Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

Registrar of Contractors Exhibits 1-14;

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Durango Masonry and Tile LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 337830 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on April 28, 2022.

On or about February 26, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work.

After an investigation a written directive was issued to correct the work. The Directive from the Registrar specified that:

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

Compliance Item: 2 - New balustrades not installed correctly and to the architects drawings specs, they damaged and had to buy more new ones.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed that the installation does not appear to be in accordance with the Manufacturer’s instructions and specifications, and is in violation of IRC R312.1.3 Opening Limitations. Required guards shall not have openings from the walking surface to the required guard height that allow a sphere of 4” in diameter to pass through. The complaint item does not meet minimum workmanship standards. The Respondent shat correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Compliance Item: 3 - Installed in an incorrect location by 2 feet, and to correct problem, needs to be corrected at big cost in time-material.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Complainant stated that he provided the Respondent with layout and the Respondent did not follow plans and specifications. The Respondent stated that he didn’t install in the same location as the previous handrail and balusters because it would not be installed over an existing beam then.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Compliance Item: 4 - French door was sold to me stating it was custom door was installed improperly and door was not custom. was stock.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed light from the exterior at several locations around the door. There are visible gaps at the interior door trim and the exterior perimeter is not finished properly. Exterior lath is visible at the head jamb and there is a large gap between the stucco and the door. The complaint item is not installed to professional industry standards. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Compliance Item: 5 - Walk on deck was repaired improperly and is now leaking and did not finish completely.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed several areas where the anti-slip sand is not visible and appears to be missing from the finished surface. The overall deck finish is inconsistent and varies. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation, and an administrative hearing was held. In their Decision, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson considered all arguments and concluded that Complainant established Respondent had, in relevant part, violated the statutes as charged in the citation. The Administrative Law Judge recommended a three day suspension of Respondent’s license.

On or about September 3, 2024, the Registrar issued its Final Decision, adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision in full.

Complainant then 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 two different contractors that Complainant had received to correct the project.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s compensable actual damages were $30,000.00. In reviewing Complainants’ claim, the Registrar determined the following:

Original Contract Price: $22,000.00

Less payment on contract: -$22,000.00

Total unpaid balance: $0.00

Total Compensable Bid Amount: $55,150.34

Less the unpaid balance on contract: -$0.00

Compensable “Actual Damages”: $30,000.00

Statutory maximum payout amount is $30,000.00. Therefore the damages equals $30,000.00.

Respondent requested a hearing. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on September 3, 2025.

Erika Hoskins testified for the Registrar. She testified that Complainant was eligible and followed all of the steps required to receive an award from the Fund. She testified in support of the documents and calculation provided in the exhibits. She testified in support of Complainant being entitled to a $30,000.00 award. Ms. Hoskins particularly noted that when bids are received, they are reviewed by the investigator assigned to the complaint to determine their reasonableness with regard to correcting only the open complaint items in the written directive. In the instant matter, the investigator found that one of the bids was excessive in scope and thus amount, but the other was acceptable.

Gregory Link testified on behalf of Respondent. He testified that the entire contract amount was only $8,079.00 and he did not believe it would cost $50,000.00 to correct the work. He noted his objection to the underlying ALJ decision.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

A.R.S. § 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 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.”

In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.

The preponderance of the evidence established that the award provided by the Fund accurately reflected Complainants’ 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 receives 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, September 15, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Dr. Irv Arenberg

[email redacted]

Durango Masonry and Tile LLC

[email redacted]

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff