ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-03320-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Liliana Muntean,

COMPLAINANT,

Reserve Builders LLC

dba Reserve Homes,

License No. ROC 281594, 354425,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-03320-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 13, 2026

APPEARANCES: Attorney Don Bushell appeared representing Liliana Muntean.

Attorney Evan Schube appeared representing Reserve Builders LL dba Reserve Homes. Investigator Jim Dimond appeared from the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”); Complainant Exhibits 1 through 6; Respondent Exhibits 1 through 33.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Reserve Builders LL dba Reserve Homes (“Respondent”) is the holder of Licenses No. 281594, B General Residential Contractor, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in October 2012.

Reserve Builders LL dba Reserve Homes (“Respondent”) is the holder of Licenses No. 354425, General Dual KB-2 Residential and Small Commercial, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in September 20214.

In November 2021, Liliana Muntean (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for new home construction for a contracted price of $911,470.77. The work began on March 4, 2022, and stopped on November 13, 2023.

On March 20, 2024, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) against Respondent from Complainant. The Complaint alleged poor work.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Jim Dimond (“Investigator”).

On November 14, 2024, Investigator conducted a jobsite inspection.

Both Complainant and Respondent were present at the jobsite inspection. Investigator reviewed the Complainant with the parties and took multiple photographs to document the alleged workmanship issues and resulting conditions of the project.

On December 2, 2024, Investigator issued a Written Directive (Directive) to Respondent indicating that eleven (11) Complaint items required corrective action. The Directive provided a deadline for corrective action to be January 2, 2025.

On December 10, 2024, Investigator issued an Amended Directive to Respondent, which moved Item #18 from needing corrective action to not needing corrective action.

On July 16, 2025, Investigator conducted a compliance inspection. Investigator noted that Items #2 and #24 had not been corrected, as follows:

Complaint Item 2 - Baseboards are rough to the touch, nail heads are showing and do not appear to be sanded or painted with enamel paint.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: There are areas of sanding and nail fill necessary.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner using the paint specified in the plans and specs.

Compliance Observation: There were still areas where the fasteners were not properly filled and painted

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 24 - Back patio concrete not stamped correctly

Investigator’s Initial Observation: The depth of the stamping texture features is inconsistent.

Control joints were started but did not continue to a termination point. The result is inconsistent cracking continuing from the tooled joint stoppage point.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Compliance Observation: A portion of the patio was removed and repoured. The small patch at the north end is poorly done.

The color at the repour does not reasonably match the adjoining slabs in color and sheen.

The termination of the slab on the sides of the chimney do not match.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike Manner.

On December 2, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of the applicable statutes:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) Departure from or disregard of (a) Plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar.

The matter was not resolved informally between the parties.

At hearing, Investigator testified regarding the background of the Complaint, his findings, and the determinations set forth in the Written Directive. Investigator noted that there had been an ongoing willingness by Respondent to perform corrective work in the hope of resolution of the matter.

At hearing, Complainant argued that the Directive items were not completed and the matter was not resolved. Complainant expressed continued dissatisfaction with the baseboard and nails holes, and joint/seam areas not being flush. Complainant argued that the Respondent’s offers to simply remove, and not replace, the most recent “corrected” patio section would not suffice because another contractor would not be able to demolish and construct a replacement section due to the higher current costs at this time for such construction.

At hearing, Respondent argued that a perfect match in concrete colors would not be possible from two separate concrete pours; they also noted that the last repour of the at-issue patio section was done in July heat and the stamping of the concrete had not taken well. Respondent argued that the most recent repoured patio section could be sawcut to make the linear points (at the column areas) match; they argued that the Directive had not required them to demolish that patio portion but to fix by appropriate means.

Respondent argued that Complainant had created a tense environment by continually videotaping the workers but not discussing issues she may have had at those times with either workers or Respondent.

Since the time of the hearing, Complainant has not advised the Tribunal that the parties have resolved the matter.

Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public records and Respondent’s ROC License record on April 2, 2026. The public record indicates that Respondent’s ROC License No. 281594 has only this one open case with the Registrar, while Respondent’s ROC License No. 354425 has no open cases.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations 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.”

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards.

The Directives mandated correction of the Investigator-determined workmanship issues. An appropriate period of time was given for the corrections and there is no evidence that Respondent requested an extension of the time period. The hearing record demonstrates that some of Respondent’s performed corrective work did not meet standards and, therefore, Respondent did not complete the Directive items.

The evidence established that Respondent’s construction work on this project showed departure from or disregard of plans or specifications that was prejudicial to Complainant without consent of Complainant who was entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project pursuant to plans or specifications in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).

The evidence established that Respondent’s construction work on this project was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent failed to complete the directed corrective work during the period of the Written Directive. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar, without valid justification, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that Respondent’s ROC License 335317 be suspended for four (4) business days beginning on the effective day of the Registrar’s final Order in this matter.

It is recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $200.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s ROC License 281594, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the Administrative Law Judge Decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the Administrative Law Judge Decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

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.

Done this day, April 3, 2026.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

Jim Dimond

[email redacted]

Donald Kneath Bushell

Engles Law APC

[email redacted]

Evan P. Schube

TIFFANY & BOSCO, PA

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff