ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-05840-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Marjorie F Petricek,

COMPLAINANT

Low Cost Cabinets LLC

DBA: Ready To Ship Cabinets,

License No. ROC 346623,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-05840-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 11, 2026.

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Marjorie Petricek

Shalene Petricek

Respondent: No Appearance

Registrar of Contractors: Charles S. Hover III, Assistant Attorney General

Erika Hoskin

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Exhibits 1-9.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Low Cost Cabinets, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 346623 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 20, 2023.

On December 14, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Marjorie Petricek (Complainant) alleging abandonment and poor work.

On September 30, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent and Respondent did not file a timely written Answer to the Citation. The Complaint and Citation were served on Respondent via certified mail, with postage prepaid, directed to the latest address of record for Respondent as shown in the license files of the Registrar.

On or about October 21, 2024, the Registrar issued its Final Decision and Order (Default) suspending Respondent’s license for a period of five business days.

Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (the Fund) to recover the cost of completing or repairing the project.

On November 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice and Order of Recovery Fund Ineligibility. The Registrar found that at the time Complainant’s project with Respondent commenced, Respondent was not appropriately licensed as required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1132(C).

Complainant requested a hearing asserting that when she consulted with Respondent prior to signing a contract, Respondent assured Complainant it was licensed. Complainant further noted that at the time she checked the Registrar’s website, Respondent’s license was listed as “Active.” Complainant stated she had done her due diligence and was lied to by professional scammers. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on February 11, 2026.

Erika Hoskin testified on behalf of the Registrar that Complainant was ineligible to receive an award from the Fund. She further testified in support of the documents and determination of relevant dates provided in the exhibits. Specifically, Ms. Hoskin determined the contract date was July 5, 2023, based on the initial invoice, dated July 5, 2023, which detailed the scope of work, the total cost of the project, and billed for the deposit amount. She determined the date work began on the project was July 12, 2023, based information provided by Complainant on the complaint and the recovery fund claim. Finally, Ms. Hoskin determined first payment was made on June 20, 2023, based on the copy of Complainant’s check to Respondent for the deposit amount, dated June 20, 2023.

Complainant testified in support of the facts provided in her request for hearing. Complainant further testified as to the payment schedule agreed between the parties at the time of consultation, which provided: 50% due as deposit, 25% due on “1st day of crew,” 15% at mid-job (flooring), and 10% on completion after inspection. Complainant stated that the only work completed on July 12, 2023, was demolition of a non-weight bearing wall and an arch. Complainant asserted no “actual” work began until July 31, 2023. Shalene Petricek questioned, on behalf of Complainant, how does a person protect themselves and victims like Complainant from frauds like Respondent who operated under multiple licenses that were eventually revoked, and Complainant’s home has been left in an unsafe condition and is a fire hazard. Ms. Petricek and Complainant argued that actual work did not begin until July 31, 2023.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to Respondent’s address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the Order setting the virtual hearing to Respondent at its email address of record.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish that Complainant is eligible to receive a payout from the Fund 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.”

A.R.S. § 32-1132(C) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

In order for a claimant to be eligible for an award from the residential contractors’ recovery fund, the contractor whose actions damaged the claimant must have been appropriately licensed at one of the following times:

1. The date that the underlying contract was signed.

2. The date that the first payment was made.

3. The date that the underlying work first commenced.

In this case, the preponderance of the evidence supported the Registrar’s determination that Respondent was not appropriately licensed on the date the underlying contract was signed, the date that the first payment was made, nor the date that the underlying work first commenced, as required by statute to be eligible for Fund payout. Respondent was first licensed on July 20, 2023. The underlying contract was signed prior to July 20, 2023. The first payment was made on June 20, 2023, and work first commenced on July 12, 2023. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) acknowledges Complainant’s argument that the work performed on July 12, 2023, was simple demolition. However, because demolition was in the scope of work per the contract, and a payment equal to the amount due on “1st day of crew” was made on July 12, 2023, the undersigned ALJ finds and concludes that the demolition was related to the contract, and thus, such work constituted the first day work commenced. This is a very unfortunate case and the undersigned ALJ empathizes with Complainant’s position. However, the undersigned ALJ is bound by the law, and the statute is clear on the Fund eligibility requirements. Therefore, the undersigned ALJ finds that Respondent was not appropriately licensed at any of the times required per A.R.S. § 32-1132(C); thus, Complainant remains ineligible for a payout from the Fund.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended the Registrar’s decision to deny Complainant’s recovery fund claim based on eligibility be affirmed and Complainant’s appeal be dismissed.

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, March 27, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Marjorie F Petricek

[email redacted]

Low Cost Cabinets LLC

DBA: Ready To Ship Cabinets,

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff