ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-05330-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-17
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Charity Marriott,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Rhino Construction & Remodeling LLC
License No. ROC 333636,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-05330-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 11, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Devon Veater.
For Respondent: Everado Flandes Rico.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Aaron King.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits 1 and 2. Respondent’s Exhibits.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Rhino Construction & Remodeling LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 333636 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on June 9, 2021.
On or about July 14, 2023, Charity Marriott (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent.
Respondent stopped performing work in March 2024. Respondent’s owner claimed Respondent stopped work because Complainant made changes to the project and refused to pay more money.
On or about May 8, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Aaron King, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on May 9, 2024, scheduling the inspection for June 28, 2024. At the request of Respondent, the inspection was rescheduled for August 21, 2024. The inspection was conducted on August 21, 2024, and Respondent was not present.
Investigator King issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on August 21, 2024.
The parties agreed to a resolution on or about September 23, 2024; accordingly, the Registrar closed the matter. After five weeks, no work had been done pursuant to the settlement. The Registrar reopened the matter, issuing another Directive on December 10, 2024, and required the work to be completed by December 27, 2024.
No work was completed during the directive period.
In February, Complainant hired a third-party to perform work due to emergency on the property. The Compliance inspection occurred after the third-party began work, but it was undisputed that no work (by Respondent or otherwise) was done during the directive period.
On February 13, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on February 27, 2025.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
Respondent’s witness argued that changes resulted in higher costs that Complainant refused to pay. Respondent did not provide documents to support its position, and the documents that appeared to be contracts and change orders did not support Respondent’s position.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 11, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 333636 was Active. There was one open case and one disciplined case.
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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”
Contracts and change orders protect both parties to an agreement. They ensure that the service-providing contractor has a record of work done and a documentary basis for payment; they also ensure that the customer consents to work being done and amount charged for the service. A contractor is legally responsible for contracts and change orders.
Respondent failed to provide documents in support of its position, and therefore, Respondent did not legally justify its actions.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project or refused to perform work without a legal excuse in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
The preponderance of the evidence 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).
“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license. . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for 10 days Respondent’s License No. 333636.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
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, June 17, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
DeVon Veater
Brentwood Law Group, PLLC
[email redacted]
Stephen Brower
Brentwood Law Group, PLLC
[email redacted]
Rhino Construction & Remodeling LLC
[email redacted]
Charity Marriott
[email redacted]
Aaron King
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff