ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-06322-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Robert Ruchala,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Boyd Ventures LLC

DBA: Aquienta Pools And Landscaping,

License No. ROC 330888, 330889, 349963,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-06322-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 7, 2025. Record held open until May 13, 2025.

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover appeared for the Registrar of Contractors. Robert Ruchala appeared for Complainant.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar’s Exhibits. Complainant’s Exhibits.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Robert Ruchala (Complainant) submitted a Recovery Fund Claim.

On December 2, 2024, the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) issued a Notice and Order of Recovery Fund Claim Denial. It stated as follows:

On February 25, 2024 Robert Ruchala entered into a contract with Boyd Ventures LLC, license ROC 349963, 330889, & 330888 for a new pool build located at 19409 W Luke Ave., Litchfield Park, AZ 85340.

Complainants filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors alleging that Respondent performed poor work. The Registrar’s investigator conducted a jobsite inspection. A directive was issued requiring Respondent to make specific repairs. Respondent failed to comply with the directive. A citation was issued to Respondent that ultimately resulted in discipline of Respondent’s license.

On July 28, 2024 Complainants filed a Residential Recovery Fund claim. In review of the claim and all supporting documents it was determined that the itemized repairs in the amount of $32,667.37 included the necessary repairs to comply with the Directive. It also includes repairs that were not the basis of the violation that were deducted from the total costs.

The Registrar denied payment because the Registrar’s calculation determined there was no compensable damage:

Original contract price: $108,215.00

Less payment on contract: ($70,339.76)

Total unpaid balance: $37,875.24

Valid expenditures: $32,667.37

Less the unpaid balance on contract: ($37,875.24)

Compensable “Actual Damages”: (-$5,207.87)

Following the calculation, the Registrar determined that $2,828.36 was compensable, making the actual damages negative $2,379.51. The Registrar also determined that rehanging the gate should have been included, the relevant bid was $175.00 making the actual damages negative $2,204.51.

To determine which expenditures were valid, the Registrar compared the underlying contract and the bids supplied by Complainant. The Registrar determined that marble tile was not a valid expenditure because the underlying contract was for “Premium Grade A Travertine Pavers” and marble was more expensive than travertine; the Registrar did not have a basis for that opinion. Complainant was not given credit for any decking materials. The Registrar determined that a $3,000.00 consulting fees were not compensable.

Complainant appealed, arguing the Registrar wrongly calculated the valid expenditures to complete or repair the project.

The contract does not clearly state how much travertine tile was required: approximately 563 square feet for the deck, some amount for 3 travertine deck lids, some amount for tiling, some amount for a six inch turf border, some amount for 118 feet of coping for the pool and spa.

Complainant testified that premium travertine can cost up to $30.00 per square foot, and the marble was approximately $10.00 per square foot and that the different material should be allowed because the difference between the materials was not material.

After the hearing, Complaint submitted updated bids, and Respondent provided an updated calculation. Respondent’s calculation appeared to add $7,722.50 in recoverable costs (12 inch Travertine Coping, 16 inch Travertine Coping, and Paver Decking); it re-excluded hanging the gate; and it excluded other necessary and reasonable costs, such as cleaning up the construction site. Inexplicably, the recoverable amount only changed by $795.00 (from negative $2,204.51 to negative $1,409.51). Respondent did not explain the differences in the calculations.

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.

Complainant 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.

To be considered for payout from the recovery fund, bids used to calculate damages must be provided by a licensed contractor. The Registrar appropriately declined to include bids from unlicensed contractors and unlicensed consultants.

Complainant is not precluded from recovering damages for work Complainant has already had completed, regardless of who completed the actual work, if Complainant otherwise satisfies the recovery fund process. For the recovery fund, actual damages are established by bids from licensed contractors or for the value of work performed by licensed contractors.

An award may not exceed the actual damages, which may not exceed the amount necessary to complete the work, but a complainant is not required to provide a bid that exactly matches the underlying contract. Inevitably, contractors use different materials, different brands, and different laborers, which have different costs. Furthermore, contractors may refuse to bid on a project unless they also demolish and replace previously completed work, which falls within actual damages.

The preponderance of the evidence established that the Registrar miscalculated actual damages.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Complainant be permitted to resubmit bids of their choosing and the Registrar start the process over.

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 2, 2025.

/s/ Samuel Fox

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Arizona Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Robert Ruchala

[email redacted]

Boyd Ventures LLC

DBA: Aquienta Pools And Landscaping

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff