ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-03983-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kenneth Bolan,

COMPLAINANT,

The Villalpando Corporation, Inc.

DBA: Villalpando Custom Homes Builders

License No. ROC 195458,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-03983-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 28, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Kenneth Bolan appeared on his own behalf. Cruz Villalpando, Jr. appeared on behalf of Respondent The Villalpando Corporation, Inc., doing business as Villalpando Custom Homes Builders. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Gregory Kinsfather appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibit 1; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Villalpando Corporation, Inc., doing business as Villalpando Custom Homes Builders (“Respondent”), is the holder of License Number 195458 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Cruz Villalpando, Jr. is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and an Officer of Respondent.

In or about September 2022, Kenneth Bolan (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to construct a storage unit facility comprised of sixteen buildings on 4.3 acres, as well as the roadways to access the buildings.

On or about April 5, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Gregory Kinsfather. After a May 7, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Kinsfather issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated September 19, 2024, that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday October 8th, 2024.

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

Complaint Item #1: - Buildings were not completed, walls were not completed, drive ways were not completed, invoices were not paid. work stop

Investigator’s Observation: Verified - At the time of my inspection this project was incomplete. The buildings themselves were missing locks, doors, trim pieces. The front wall to the project was incomplete. The driveways along the north and west portion of the project were incomplete. The respondent will complete the entire project as per contract by appropriate means.

Complaint Item #A2: - Wall with no rebar or bond beam

Investigator’s Observation: The wall in question is the north wall at the entrance to the project. This wall was incomplete at the time of the inspection. The respondent will complete the wall by appropriate means.

Complaint Item #A6: - Lights falling off

Investigator’s Observation: Throughout the project there is lighting for the driveways via LED fixtures attached to freestanding metal light poles. At the time there were 12 of them that were hanging off the top of the poll. The respondent will correct all failing lights by appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item #A3: - No felt at driveways

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant pointed to area where the driveway slab meets the slab under the storage building/units themselves. This area did not have felt installed in-between the slabs. The complainant did not provide evidence to support the requirement for felt at this location. No action is required of the respondent.

Complaint Item #A4: - Conduit not 2 feet down

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant pointed out a conduit at the north end of the property that would run under the yet to be installed driveway. I was informed that this was for telecom and that it should be 2 feet down. The Complainant provided no evidence to support this allegation. No action is required by the Respondent.

Complaint Item #A5: - Wrong bollards were used

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant pointed out the bollards placed throughout the property, though no evidence was provided at the inspection or after to prove this complaint item. No action is required of the respondent.

All errors in original.

On or about October 4, 2024, Respondent requested an extension of the Written Directive deadline and Complainant agreed to the requested extension. Investigator Kinsfather extended the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive to October 31, 2024.

On November 5, 2024, Investigator Kinsfather contacted Complainant to inquire as to whether the required corrective work had been completed. Complainant indicated that it had not. Thereafter, Investigator Kinsfather scheduled a Compliance Jobsite Inspection for November 19, 2024.

Investigator Kinsfather’s Compliance Notes indicate the following:

Complaint Item #1: - Buildings were not completed, walls were not completed, drive ways were not completed, invoices were not paid. work stop

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified - At the time of my inspection this project was incomplete. The buildings themselves were missing locks, doors, trim pieces. The front wall to the project was incomplete. The driveways along the north and west portion of the project were incomplete. The respondent will complete the entire project as per contract by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: The complainant showed me the buildings were complete, including locks, doors and trim pieces. Additionally, the front wall had been completed to his satisfaction. However, the north and west driveways were still incomplete and/or had repairs that were still incomplete. There was areas of concrete crumbling at the joint of the driveway slab and the building slab. Also, the slope of the drives was incorrect, as such deep uneven cuts were made in the slabs by the respondent to try and aide drainage, these cuts were still present and there had been no correction to the slope of the drives overall.

Complaint Item #A2: - Wall with no rebar or bond beam

Compliance Observation: The respondent completed this item to the complainants' satisfaction, expressing that the rebar is in and the bond beam is filled.

Complaint Item #A6: - Lights falling off

Compliance Observation: This item had been completed to design by the respondent. The complainant did note that the lights themselves were deficient in quality but agreed that this was not the responsibility of the respondent.

All errors in original.

Thereafter, Investigator Kinsfather forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearing, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Kinsfather testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes, the Written Directive, and the Compliance Notes. During his testimony, Investigator Kinsfather referenced the photographs he took during the inspections to illustrate the deficiencies in Respondent’s work. Investigator Kinsfather testified that as of the date of the Compliance Inspection, there was only one issue remaining from the Written Directive, Complaint Item Number 1, having to do with the roadways. Investigator Kinsfather explained that the concrete was crumbling because expansion joints had not been properly installed. Investigator Kinsfather testified that there had been no assertion made by Respondent concerning a denial of access.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Kinsfather’s testimony, and offered the Registrar’s Workmanship Standards into evidence.

Mr. Villalpando testified that the project passed all inspections by the City of Coolidge. Mr. Villalpando further testified that the surveying company hired by Complainant set the elevations and that Respondent followed all of the elevation points provided. Mr. Villalpando asserted that toward the completion of Respondent’s scope of work, the project was over budget and Complainant agreed to pay for supplies directly. Thereafter, a lien was placed because Complainant did not pay the suppliers, and then Complainant hired another contractor to complete the project. Mr. Villalpando testified that Respondent is still willing to correct the expansion joints.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 9, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 195458 was first issued on May 4, 2004, and is revoked effective August 29, 2024. Such prior License record also reflects that there are four (4) open complaints including the instant Complaint, one (1) resolved/settled complaint, and two (2) complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

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 evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued, notwithstanding the extension of time in which to do so. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License Number 195458.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 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 decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the 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 10, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by e-mail to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

[email redacted]

Kenneth Bolan

[email redacted]

The Villalpando Corporation, Inc.

DBA: Villalpando Custom Homes Builders

[email redacted]

Greg Kinsfather

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff