ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-06379-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-23
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jessica Monroy,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Craig Scott Ludolph
DBA: A A A Siding
License No. ROC 064899,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-06379-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 8, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Jessica Monroy appeared on her own behalf via Google Meet. Respondent Craig Scott Ludolph appeared on his own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Chris Allison appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Craig Scott Ludolph (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 064899 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about June 6, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to install new siding at her second home in Show Low, Arizona.
On or about June 5, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Chris Allison. The jobsite inspection was performed on June 24, 2024. Next, Complainant filed an addendum to the Complaint, and that jobsite inspection was completed on September 11, 2024.
Investigator Allison then issued a Written Directive on or about September 30, 2024, which provided in pertinent part 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 Sunday, October 20, 2024.
...
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 4 - Light mounting boxes not flush at north side of home
Investigator’s Observation: The box on the gable of the front porch cover is not flush and does not appear to be installed correctly.
Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 5 - Nails spray painted wrong color at multiple areas.
Investigator’s Observation: The touch up paint used does not match the
siding paint.
Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 6 - Trim around electrical panel does not appear to be installed properly.
Investigator’s Observation: The trim was not installed correctly.
Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 7 - Bay window trim is wavy with gaps in the caulking.
Investigator’s Observation: The trim is wavy and there are gaps in the caulking.
Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 8 - Caulking not done properly in areas where there is caulking.
Investigator’s Observation: There are area where excessive caulk was used due to cuts and/or joints not being tight.
There are areas where caulking is missing.
Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 9 - Edges of trim bent at multiple areas.
Investigator’s Observation: There are edges of the trim that are bent and not straight in multiple areas.
Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 10 - Gaps at corners not done properly. Some overfilled with caulking/missing caulking in mult. areas.
Investigator’s Observation: There are area where excessive caulk was used due to cuts and/or joints not being tight.
There are areas where caulking is missing.
Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 11 - seams on horizontal siding pieces have voided spaces open to potential pests in mult areas.
Investigator’s Observation: There are several areas where the seams of the siding have opened up.
Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 12 - Siding cut short in areas and not covered by trim pieces at multiple areas.
Investigator’s Observation: There are several areas where the siding was cut short, and does not extend into the trim channels.
There are several areas where framing and/or house wrap is not covered by the siding.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 13 - There are a few loose pieces of siding near the front door.
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 14 - Flashing at roof not installed properly
Investigator’s Observation: The flashing is not sealed to the siding. It allows water to get behind the flashing.
Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 15 - Sharp edges exposed due to improper installation in multiple areas.
Investigator’s Observation: There are shape edges and corners that look unfinished.
Respondent shall correct in an appropriate manner.
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.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item: 1 - The contractor ran out of materials and did not install what was promised on the bid.
Investigator’s Observation: Completed prior to inspection.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 2 - The contractor failed to install siding material around the electric panel.
Investigator’s Observation: Completed prior to inspection.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable
Complaint Item: 3 - The contractor did not trim the electrical outlets so lights can be installed properly.
Investigator’s Observation: Completed prior to inspection.
Governing Rule: Not Applicable...
(All errors contained in the original).
On November 14, 2024, 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).
On or about November 14, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about November 27, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on January 8, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Allison testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.
Investigator Allison testified that no Compliance Jobsite inspection was performed because Complainant informed him that no work had been completed.
Further, Investigator Allison testified that if the siding was installed per the manufacturer specifications, Respondent failed to provide that information to him for review.
Complainant testified that Respondent never appeared at the jobsite, but rather sent crews as well as Keenan Watson. She testified that she sent pictures of the home to Respondent who then prepared the contract accordingly.
In addition, Complainant testified that the first crew was drinking on the job and sleeping in their cars on Complainant’s yard. Once she informed Respondent, he then sent Mr. Watson to complete the project. However, Mr. Watson ran out of materials and spray painted some of the material white.
Complainant further testified that there were no change orders and she paid the full contracted price as she believed all the work performed was a part of the contract.
Respondent testified that his first crew did not do a good job so he brought Mr. Watson in to correct issues and finish the job. He also testified that there was nothing not done correctly on the original contract and that Complainant owed him $5,000.00 for the “extra work”, and that he would not make any additional repairs without receiving the $5,000.00 first.
Finally, Respondent testified that all of his work is done at a higher standard than the Registrar’s minimum standards.
Keenan Watson testified that everything was done correctly to industry or manufacturer standards and performed work at his own expense to make the project look good. Mr. Watson also testified that some of the waviness was due to the weather extremes and it would take a few seasons for the material to settle into place.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 23, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 064899 was first issued on April, 8, 1986, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not within workmanship standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the light mounting boxes were not flush over the front porch; nails were spray painted the incorrect color; the trim around the electrical panel was not installed correctly; the bay window caulking was wavy, and there was excessive caulking in areas; edges of the trim were bent in areas; there spaces open in some horizontal pieces; siding was cut short in areas; loose pieces of siding by front door; roof flashing was not installed properly; and there were sharp edges exposed;
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to fully complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. 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 suspend Respondent’s License No. 064899 for a period of two days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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, January 23, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Jessica Monroy
[email redacted]
Craig Scott Ludolph
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff