ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-06409-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Sue Lawson,

COMPLAINANT,

Campa Construction, LLC,

License No. ROC 332509,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-06409-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 18, 2025.

APPEARANCES: Attorney Stephen J. Anthony represented Sue and Roy Lawson (Complainants). Attorney Brenda J. Lee represented Campo Construction LLC and Norma and Daniel Campa. ROC Investigator John Smith appeared as witness from Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet). Complainant Exhibits A through AA, plus 67 exhibits (undesignated). Respondent Exhibits 1 through 36.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Campa Construction LLC (Respondent) is the holder of contracting License No. 332509, KB-2 Dual Residential and Small Commercial, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) in March 2021. Norma Angelica Campa is Respondent’s Qualifying Party.

On August 31, 2022, Sue Lawson (Complainant) and Respondent entered into an agreement. The parties’ executed proposal demonstrates that Respondent placed ROC License No. 332509 on the proposal. The proposal states:

This agreement dated August 31, 2022, is between the client Sue & Roy Lawson and TuStong Contracting/Campa Construction, LLC for the noted project.

Project Scope & Provision:

The scope of work consists of a complete renovation and expansion . . . The Construction plans provided by Mr. and Mrs. Lawson by Architecture firm GGV Designs, PLLC signed, and dated May 22, 2022, will be constructed per construction documents . . . Final finishes are to be approved by client prior to installation. Scope includes the install of new septic and raised ceiling in the great room with span scissor trusses.

Fee Proposal:

Total ___ $437,581.20

In May 2023, Julien Flores, invoiced Complainant separately for demolition of the pool. On the invoice, Mr. Flores indicated that he was contracting with Complainant as TuStrong Contracting Inc. under ROC KB-1 License No. 341401.

Respondent was the named general contractor on the Residential Construction Loan and entitled to received draws. Respondent received each of the nineteen draws for the project; per the Construction Loan agreement, a final conditional lien waiver was required for the final draw. On February 28, 2024, Respondent executed the Conditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment.

Concerned with the construction of the home, Complainant obtained a home inspection from OX Home Inspections (OXHI) on February 5, 2024. OXHI inspected 105 items, found 3 safety hazards, and made 40 recommendations.

On or about February 8, 2024, Complainant shared the OXHI report with Respondent. While the parties had communications thereafter, the matter was not resolved to Complainant’s satisfaction.

On or about June 4, 2024, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) from Complainant against Julien Flores and Nicholas Walstrom, TuStrong Electrical, License No. 348142, alleging abandonment and poor construction work. According to the Complaint, the project was contracted on August 31, 2022, house renovation work began on October 1, 2022, and stopped on February 28, 2024.

Complainant’s Complaint included specific allegations regarding electrical work which TuStrong Electrical performed as a subcontractor for Respondent. The Complaint states:

Tustrong did not have a contracting license yet oversaw most of the work at our home. However, this particular complaint will only address the electrical issues for which they were licensed to perform work and were paid in full by our bank, as contracted. Tustrong Electrical would have been a subcontractor under Campa Construction.

The stated contract amount was $437,581.20; however the stated paid amount was $473,791.50.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator (Inv.) John Smith. On review, Inv. Smith determined that, at the time of the agreement, Respondent was a licensed contractor with ROC License No. 332509 and TuStrong Electrical was not a licensed contractor.

On or about June 10, 2024, Inv. Smith issued four warning letters to Respondent: one regarding display of license, one regarding required elements of a contract, one regarding contracting for construction work outside the scope of a license, and one regarding aiding and abetting unlicensed contracting.

Inv. Smith set a jobsite inspection for July 17, 2024. Respondent appeared at the jobsite inspection. At that time, Inv. Smith documented multiple workmanship issues regarding the project.

On July 22, 2024, Inv. Smith issued a Directive against Respondent’s ROC License No. 332509 requiring that Respondent perform corrective work and notify the Investigator no later than August 21, 2024 that the work was completed.

On August 27, 2024, after Complainant agreed to an extension of time for Respondent to complete the Directive work, Inv. Smith issued an Amended Directive requiring that Respondent perform corrective work and notify the Investigator no later than September 11, 2024 that the work was completed.

Regarding the requisite work, the July and August Directives indicate the following, in pertinent part:

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 2: “Electrical outlets in great room are wired improperly. One open neutral, one open ground.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Receptacles in the great room have open grounds and/or open neutrals.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 3: “Add dimmers back to GR, Kitchen, Primary. Must fix flickering. May be caused by wiring proximity to water lines.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

All lights connected to dimmer switches flicker excessively while hot water is running at any location.

To compensate, most dimmer switches were removed, without authorization from the property owner, and replaced with standard toggle switches.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 4: “Electronic fireplace needs to be repaired or replaced.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The electric fireplace is partially disassembled, and not functional.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 6: “West 3-way switches do not coordinate to north 3-way switches in great room.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

3-way switches are not functioning properly from both locations.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 7: “East bank of switches in great room have not been identified.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Switches are not functioning / not identified.

The plans indicate a five gang electrical box for five switches.

Installed is a 3 gang box, and a separate two gang box.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 8: “Must install two ceiling lights in garage and wire to wall switch as per plans.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The plans specify two ceiling lights in the garage, and a wall switch.

Currently no ceiling lights are installed in the garage.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 9: “Must add additional wall outlet as per code on west wall of primary.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Receptacles in the master bedroom are approximately 15’6” apart from each other.

Maximum allowable spacing between wall receptacles is 12’.

International Residential Code: “E3901.2.1 Spacing. Receptacles shall be installed so that no point measured horizontally along the floor line in any wall space is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) from a receptacle outlet.”

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes...

Complaint Item 10: “Fix cause of flickering lights in den when water is running (not always, but similar to kitchen issue)”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

All lights connected to dimmer switches flicker excessively while hot water is running at any location.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 12: “No working outlets in ensuite guest bdrm.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Receptacles in the guest suite have no power.

Receptacles installed are intended for use on 20 amp dedicated use circuits.

• This is not in accordance with the plans.

• There is no indication receptacles in this room are on actual 20 amp dedicated circuits.

Electrical boxes, switches, and receptacles in the guest suite bathroom are incomplete.

• Missing cover plates

• Exposed wires

• Switches not secured in boxes

• Receptacles not secured in boxes

• Switches not installed

• Receptacles not installed

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 14: “Recessed ceiling lights in ensuite guest bdrm dim unevenly, two may dim completely while others are still on.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

All lights within the room turn on to 100% with use of the dimmer switch.

When adjusting to off; 50% of the lights turn off, 50% of the lights remain on at approximately 50% brightness.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 15: “There is no outlet on south wall of nook (should be code requirement?)”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

One wall section of the nook area is approximately 14’ lineal feet with no receptacles.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 16: “Must add overhead lights to back patio as per plans.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The plans specify three ceiling fans and 6 overhead lights.

Three ceiling fans are installed; however, there is no overhead lighting, or electrical for overhead lighting.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 17: “Must bring electrical panel up to code with correct/current labels for all circuits.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Most circuits on both panels are not labeled.

International Residential Code: “E3706.2Panelboard circuit identification.

All circuits and circuit modifications shall be legibly identified as to their clear, evident, and specific purpose or use. The identification shall include an approved degree of detail that allows each circuit to be distinguished from all others. Spare positions that contain unused overcurrent devices or switches shall be described accordingly. The identification shall be included in a circuit directory located on the face, inside of or in an approved location adjacent to the panel door. Circuits shall not be described in a manner that depends on transient conditions of occupancy. The directory shall clearly explain abbreviations and symbols when used.”

Additionally, the ground wire from the main panel is not secured, and is considered to be a trip hazard.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code...

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 18: “Unfinished outlet box was left in primary bathroom when it should be a 3- way switch to coordinate to entry 3-way switch.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Electrical boxes, switches, and receptacles in the master bathroom are incomplete.

• Missing cover plates

• Exposed wires

• Switches not secured in boxes

• Receptacles not secured in boxes

• Switches not installed

• Receptacles not installed

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 19: “Must rewire open ground outlet on east wall of primary.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Wall receptacle in the master bedroom has an open ground.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS

In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were verified:

Elements of a Contract

Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s contract is missing the following information:

• The contractor’s ROC number

• The mailing address of the property owner

• An estimated date of completion

• The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner.

• The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract.

• Information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the registrar

• Contact information for the registrar

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) Minimum Elements of a Contract.

Any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information:

1: The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and license number.

2: The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description.

3: The date the parties entered into the contract.

4: The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract.

5: A description of the work to be performed under the contract.

6: The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes.

7: The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner.

8: The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract.

9a: That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A.

9b: The contract shall contain the registrar’s telephone number and website address and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in section 32- 1162, subsection A.

9c: The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the contract in at least ten- point bold type...

9d: ...and the contract shall be signed by the property owner and the contractor or the contractor’s designated representative.

This paragraph does not apply to a person who is subject to and complies with section 12-1365.

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit a contract form (for use on future projects) that complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158

Display of License

Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s Proposal does not include the respondent’s ROC number.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) Namely A.R.S. § 32-1124(B) Display of License

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit documented compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1124

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 1: “Tustrong did not have a contracting license yet oversaw most of the work at our home. However, this particular complaint will only address the electrical issues for which they were licensed to perform and were paid in full by our bank, as contracted. TuStrong Electrical would have been a subcontractor under Campa Construction.”

Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a specific workmanship issue, or a specific violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 5: “West ceiling fan in great room doesn't not work.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

The property owner stated this is now working.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 11: “Wall switch for fan does not work in den.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

The property owner stated this is now working.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 13: “Wall switch for fan does not work in ensuite guest bdrm.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

The property owner stated this is now working.

Governing Rule: N/A

On October 9, 2024, Complainant filed an Addendum to the Complaint.

After a rescheduling, Inv. Smith conducted a further jobsite inspection on December 9, 2024. Respondent was present. On December 9, 2024, Inv. Smith documented multiple additional workmanship issues regarding the project.

On December 13, 2024, Inv. Smith issued a further Amended Directive against Respondent’s ROC License No. 332509 requiring that Respondent perform corrective work and notify the Investigator no later than January 10, 2025 that the work was completed.

In addition to the previously stated Directive items on the July and August Directives, the December Amended Directive set forth the following additional items that required Respondent’s corrective work:

Complaint Item 20: “Immediate Concerns:

• Install standing-seam metal roofing on front and back porch covers. Underlayment has been exposed to elements for at least a year, will certainly need to be replaced as well.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The front and back porch have underlayment only, no roofing material.

The respondent acknowledged:

• The underlayment has been exposed too long

• The underlayment needs to be replaced.

• The metal roofing material needs to be installed.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 21: “Immediate Concerns:

• Paint and plaster on threshold into laundry room from garage needs to be removed.

Door does not close properly (fire hazard) and sticks when trying to open or close.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

• There is paint and other debris on the threshold.

• The sweep along the bottom of the door is torn.

• The door does not open and close properly.

• The door is missing the weather stripping.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 22: “Immediate Concerns:

• Concrete flooring throughout house is uneven, visibly noticeable in great room where trenching took place. Floors were not covered after installation and were damaged during wall surfacing and painting. Incurred damage during construction was patched poorly. When floors were sealed paint, dirt, and hair from construction was not cleaned up and is now sealed onto the flooring. (We even found footprints in the sealing). Very poorly done.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The floors are a concrete overlay material.

• There are distinct ridges at most doorways.

• There are patches that do not blend well.

• There are areas of wall and door paint on the floor.

• There are areas of scrapes/marks/prints on the floor

• The floor, throughout the house, is not within acceptable tolerance of flatness or levelness.

o Flatness and levelness was checked with an eight foot level.

 Kitchen: has a hump in the floor. From the high point, the floor slopes one direction 1/4 inch in eight feet, and slopes in the other direction 9/16 inch in eight feet.

 Nook: the floor slopes 3/4 inch in eight feet.

 Pantry: the floor slopes 1⁄4 inch in eight feet.

 Great room: the floor slopes 1/2 inch in eight feet.

 Front bedroom: the floor slopes 3/8 inch in eight feet.

 Ensuite bedroom: the floor slopes 3/8 inch in eight feet.

 Master bedroom: the floor is out of level 3/8 in four feet, and out of level

1/4 inch in eight feet.

o Upon completion: the floor entire floor is required to be within acceptable

tolerance as specified in the Arizona Workmanship Standards.

• As stated in the Arizona Workmanship Standards:

o Floors should not vary from flat more than 1/4 inch over a 10 foot area.

o Floors should be level within 1/4 inch in any 12 foot run.

Acceptance of the Surface

Published as Substantive Policy Statement 2017.01 by the

Arizona Registrar of Contractors

Quoted from Substantive Policy Statement 2017.01

Acceptance of the Surface

• "As a general principle in construction, a subcontractor who performs work on top of a surface prepared by another accepts the surface. The

subcontractor should have inspected the surface for any flaws or defects that would affect the work he proposes before performing the work. If he found the surface to be unacceptable, he should have called any defects to the owner's or general contractor's attention so that the owner can choose whether to pay for the defective surface to be corrected or if the owner is not willing to pay to correct the surface, the contractor may obtain an explicit warranty disclaimer."

Source: Deebv. Check s Epoxy, No. 2014A-3258 (ALJ Decision at 11:11- 19).

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 24: “Immediate Concerns:

• Primary shower drain is very slow, fills up like a tub in minutes. Clearly an obstruction in plumbing line.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The drain in the master shower is very slow/restricted.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 26: “Immediate Concerns:

• Southwest window in Great Room leaks, visible signs of moisture on paper liner in window and sliding track.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There is evidence of a leak at the southwest window of the great room.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 27: “Immediate Concerns:

• Front door insulation needs replacing. It was poorly installed, cracked, not efficiently keeping out dust/insects.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Weather stripping at main entry door is damaged.

Insulation wedges missing from main entry door.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 28: “Immediate Concerns:

• Repair/replace roll-up garage door. At time of install it was very quiet, very smooth.

However, it was damaged by Daniel’s paint crew. Need to replace bent/damaged crossbar, which may be causing it to wobble and make an occasional grinding sound.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

• The door is binding – would not close by use of normal controls.

• There is paint on sensors.

• There is paint on release mechanism restricting proper operation.

• The horizontal stiffeners are bent / not straight.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 29: “Immediate Concerns:

• Insulate the HVAC drainage pipes on north side of house and seal with steel wool and concrete/stucco (Owner has already filled with steel wool). ”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There are significant gaps/voids around the drainage pipes at the north side of the house.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 30: “Immediate Concerns:

• Fix gap in foundation at north exterior wall, opposite primary commode. ”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There is a void in the concrete foundation at the north side of the house, specifically around a sewer drain pipe.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 31: “Immediate Concerns:

• Remove, or grind down, remaining form stakes from the ground, east edge of back patio slab.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Form steaks have not been removed at the rear patio area.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 32: “Immediate Concerns:

• Install overflow valves caps on back patio slab.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Sewer cleanouts at the rear patio (at least 3) are recessed in the concrete, and partially covered with concrete residue. Not currently removable.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 34: ““Cosmetic” Items

• Fix interior doors (sand, repaint?) throughout house that stick to the door jamb (paint has peeled off), or have a “spotted” finish, are cracked or chipped at lock plates when installed.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Several interior doors, throughout the house have:

• Inconsistent paint sheen

• Bubbles, drips, and/or debris in the paint

• Sticky operation

• Peeling paint

• Door color paint on the jamb

There are several areas of cracking at:

• Caulked seams between trim and drywall

• Miter joints

• Seams in door jambs and trims.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 35: ““Cosmetic” Items

• Touch-up interior wall flash painting throughout. Some walls appear to have two different finishes, possibly flat vs. satin.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Several interior surfaces, throughout the house have:

• Inconsistent paint sheen

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 36: “Kitchen

• Kitchen closet door has paint drips.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There are visible drips in the paint.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 37: “Kitchen

• Pantry door sticks, paint peeling off.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

• Sticky operation

• Peeling paint

• Door color paint on the jamb

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 38: “Kitchen

• Island- southeast lower corner needs to be sanded/repainted.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There is rough drywall texture at the corner of the kitchen island.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 39: “Laundry Room

• Rubber flap at bottom of laundry door was damaged during construction and needs to be replaced.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The sweep at the bottom of the door is torn.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 41: “Primary Bedroom/Bathroom

• Skylight openings need edges to sanded and painted (should also paint metal flashing).”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The upper portion of the drywall in the skylight openings is poorly finished.

There is paint and/or drywall residue on portions of the aluminum skylight frame.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 42: “Primary Bedroom/Bathroom

• Sink stopper does not work (basin closest to commode).”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The drain stopper at the right sink in the master bathroom does not work.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 43: “Primary Bedroom/Bathroom

• Primary commode door sticks, and needs caulking at door frame.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

This door was operating correctly during this inspection.

There are areas of cracking at:

• Caulked seams between trim and drywall

• Miter joints

• Seams in door jambs and trims.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 44: “Primary Bedroom/Bathroom

• Primary closet door needs caulking/fill at seams of door frame.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There are areas of cracking at:

• Caulked seams between trim and drywall

• Miter joints

• Seams in door jambs and trims.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 45: “Primary Bedroom/Bathroom

• Primary entry door has a “spotted” paint finish.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Inconsistent paint sheen

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 46: “Primary Bedroom/Bathroom

• Schluter around primary shower is poorly installed, seams don’t meet evenly or completely.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Poor/uneven miter joints in the Schluter trim at the shower.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 47: “Primary Bedroom/Bathroom

• Missing vent cover in primary closet.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Missing air diffuser in the master closet.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 48: “Primary Bedroom/Bathroom

• Touch up paint needed next to east medicine cabinet (closest to commode)”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Near the right medicine cabinet, there is peeling paint and uneven drywall texture.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 50: “Den

• Closet door sticks.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The door sticks on the jamb.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 51: “Den

• Flash painting on east wall.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Paint has an inconsistent color/sheen.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 52: “Hall Closet

• Hall closet door sticks, paint peeling.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The door sticks on the jamb.

Peeling paint

Bubbles, drips, and/or debris in the paint

Door color paint on the jamb

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 53: “Hall Bathroom

• Bathtub needs to be refinished due to poorly repaired chip and subsequent scratches by paint crew.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The repaired portion of the tub has an inconsistent sheen finish.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 54: “Hall Bathroom

• Waterfall glass plate on sink faucet was chipped during painting, needs to be replaced.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The glass portion of the faucet is chipped/broken.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 56: “Hall Bathroom

• Need touch up paint around ceiling vent and shower light.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There is inadequate paint coverage around the recessed light.

There is peeling paint and drywall ridges around the air diffuser.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 57: “Ensuite (Bdrm #1) Bedroom

• Install closet door handles and “bumpers” on closet door.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

Sliding closet doors missing handles.

Screw holes in edges of doors not filled or painted.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 60: “Ensuite Bathroom

• Grout and paint clean-up is needed in shower.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There is paint and grout residue on the Schluter trim and tiles of the shower.

There is permanent marker on the surface of the shower tiles.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 61: “Ensuite Bathroom

• Green “waterproofing” at shower drain needs to be detailed.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There is a greenish color film/material on the shower drain cap.

The cap is excessively scratched.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 62: “Ensuite Bathroom

• Entry edge of bench is very sharp (uneven Schluter installation.)”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The corner of the shower bench is excessively sharp.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 63: “Ensuite Bathroom

• Toilet is missing cover plate at base.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The removable cap to access to the toilet bolts is missing from one side of the toilet.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 65: “Exterior

• Remove errant paint from garage keypad.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

There is paint and/or stucco residue on the garage door opener keypad.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS

In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were verified:

Elements of a Contract

Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s contract is missing the following information:

• The contractor’s ROC number

• The mailing address of the property owner

• An estimated date of completion

• The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner.

• The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract.

• Information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the registrar

• Contact information for the registrar

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) Minimum Elements of a Contract.

Any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information:

1: The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and license number.

2: The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description.

3: The date the parties entered into the contract.

4: The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract.

5: A description of the work to be performed under the contract.

6: The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes.

7: The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner.

8: The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract.

9a: That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A.

9c: The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the

contract in at least ten- point bold type...

9d: ...and the contract shall be signed by the property owner and the contractor or the contractor’s designated representative.

This paragraph does not apply to a person who is subject to and complies with section 12-1365.

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit a contract form (for use on future projects) that complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158

Display of License

Investigator’s Observations: The respondent’s Proposal does not include the respondent’s ROC number.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) Namely A.R.S. § 32-1124(B) Display of License

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit documented compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1124

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a specific workmanship issue, or a specific violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 5: “West ceiling fan in great room doesn't not work.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

The property owner stated this is now working.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 11: “Wall switch for fan does not work in den.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

The property owner stated this is now working.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 13: “Wall switch for fan does not work in ensuite guest bdrm.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

The property owner stated this is now working.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 23: “Immediate Concerns:

• We were pressured into accepting a concrete floor as it was not in our original plans, but we were told there was no money left in the budget and concrete flooring was our only option, or we would have to come up with more money. Now we know that was not true. But we are stuck with these unprofessionally installed floors, done by an unlicensed installer.”

Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a specific workmanship issue, or a specific violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).

The respondent is a licensed contractor.

The respondent is responsible for actions and inactions of all work that was performed on site.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 25: “Immediate Concerns:

• How do we know if the plumbers were licensed?”

Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a specific workmanship issue, or a specific violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).

The respondent is a licensed contractor.

The respondent is responsible for actions and inactions of all work that was performed on site.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 33: “Immediate Concerns:

• Water pressure seems very low, especially in bathrooms.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).

Water pressure/flow at sinks with aerators is acceptable and normal.

Water pressure/flow at showers is likely a result of internal manufacturer flow restrictors.

Water pressure/flow at waterfall type faucets is likely a result of internal manufacturer flow restrictors.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 40: “Laundry Room

• Entry door to laundry from hallway sticks.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

This door was operating correctly during this inspection.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 49: “Den

• Entry door to den sticks.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

This door was operating correctly during this inspection.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 55: “Hall Bathroom

• Paint flashing as marked with tape.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

Paint in this room looked acceptable during this inspection.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 58: “Ensuite (Bdrm #1) Bedroom

• Ensuite entry door sticks.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

This door was operating correctly during this inspection.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 59: “Ensuite (Bdrm #1) Bedroom

• Flash painting on various walls.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

Paint in this room looked acceptable during this inspection.

Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 64: “Exterior

• Repaint west wall (facing backyard) where flashing was replaced. Must have used the wrong paint color, appears to be different on the upper left section of the wall.”

Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified.

The complainant stated this has been corrected.

Governing Rule: N/A

On January 10, 2025, Inv. Smith wrote his Compliance Notes, having been informed that Respondent had not performed any corrective work. The Compliance Notes indicate the following: Respondent had not performed any corrective work; Respondent had not provided a compliant contract form; Respondent had not submitted any invoices confirming the correction of Display of its license; and, Respondent had not complied with any portion of the Directives.

Inv. Smith forwarded the matter to ROC legal Department.

On January 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging the following possible violations:

Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)

Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.

Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)

Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.

Charge: 3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A)

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.

Charge: 4 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(B)

Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Charge: 5 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a)

Attempting to evade this chapter by: (a) Aiding or abetting a licensed or unlicensed person.

Charge: 6 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1124(B)

Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1124(B).

Charge: 7 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158

Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Charge: 8 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16)

Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.

Charge: 9 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.

On January 29, 2025, Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation. Respondent denied any violations, stated that the work had performed in accordance with plans and all applicable codes, stated that no unlicensed contractors were contracted with, stated that all work had been performed within the scope of Respondent’s license, and stated that the remedial work had been in compliance with Registrar’s orders.

On February 3, 2025, the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary administrative hearing.

On February 18, 2025, Complainant and Respondent participated in a walk-though on the project.

In February 2025, Daniel and Norma Campa filed for bankruptcy.

On February 18, 2025, the Registrar issued its Notice of Hearing setting the hearing for April 2025. Following continuances, the hearing was conducted on July 18, 2025.

At the hearing, Inv. Smith testified consistent with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspections, three Directives, and Compliance Notes. Inv. Smith reiterated that, under Arizona contracting laws, Respondent, as a licensed general contractor is responsible for actions and inactions of all work that was performed on site. Inv. Smith noted that Respondent could have hired another licensed contractor to perform the Directive-ordered corrective work for which Respondent was licensed. Inv. Smith testified that Julien Flores indicated that the electrical work had been done by an unlicensed contractor and that he, Julien Flores had been that unlicensed person. Inv. Smith testified that the majority of the Addendum items were not, as being argued by Respondent, only punch list items.

At hearing, Complainant testified that Mr. Flores led her to believe that he/TuStrong and Respondent were partners on the project and that, until Mr. Flores walked off the job in February of 2024 telling her that he had not been paid by Respondent, she had never had any contact with Daniel Campa. Complainant noted that, at that point, Mr. Campa had stated that he would correct the issues and that he had been working on some of the issues. As time passed after February 2024 and Respondent had been fully paid, Complainant felt that Respondent was stringing her along with regard to completing items.

Complainant testified that only part of the home had original concrete and that Respondent had effectuated the concrete in the addition, consisting of the garage, laundry, one-half of the kitchen, the primary bedroom, primary bath, and rear porch and patio. Complainant testified that, at/after the December 2024 jobsite inspection, Mr. Campa had indicated that, if the flooring issues were included in the Directive, he would be “out.”

After the issuance of the December 13, 2024 Directive, Complainant did not hear from Respondent in response to her inquiries about completing the work.

At hearing, Mr. Campa testified that Mr. Flores brought him the Complainant’s project. Mr. Campa indicated that he had a contract with TuStrong Contracting; the August 4, 2022 contract document does not indicate an ROC license number for either entity. The contract divides the contracting fees and profit margins in half. The parties agreed to share the financial and any other liability. At hearing, Mr. Campa was vague about the total amount that was shared.

Mr. Campa indicated his belief that Mr. Flores was licensed and that there were both a license for electrical work and a license for general construction work. Mr. Campa acknowledged that he did not check (with the Registrar) about a license. Mr. Campa stated that he never knowingly contracted with an unlicensed person.

At hearing, Mr. Campa stated that when he received the first Directive, and read the “Restrictions,” he believed that he could not hire anyone to do the corrective work. However, this statement is inconsistent with the documents demonstrating emails to Inv. Smith regarding trying to find an electrician and other companies to perform work at the project.

Mr. Campa stated that, when he received the December 2024 Directive with all the additional items, he was surprised because these were items which Complainant had not raised with him on walk-throughs, and he did not agree with those items. Mr. Campa stated that he became frustrated with the additional items and that he just wanted to go to hearing to get a final determination on what Respondent needed to do.

Mr. Campa testified about the ROC Complaint he filed against Nicholas Walstrom, ROC License No. 348142, regarding the same electrical items of which Complainant had complained. Mr. Campa stated that, even with that Complaint, it was his understanding that Mr. Walstrom never addressed any of the electrical items with Complainant.

Respondent argued that the Complainant’s Complaint had been against TuStong and not against Respondent, and questioned the authority of the ROC to investigate and determine, based on a Complaint, the person who is responsible. Respondent argued that any contractor who works for a general contractor is responsible, themselves, to do the corrective work. Respondent argued that Respondent initially believed he could not hire anyone but also that, then, he could not find anyone to touch someone else’s work. Respondent took the position that, when the subcontractor won’t do the corrective work, the general becomes “a target” of the Registrar and the general should not be disciplined because the subcontractor is, in fact, the one who is responsible.

Complainant argued that Respondent ignored the Directives and, by his actions, violated multiple provisions, for which Respondent should be disciplined. Complainant argued that Respondent had 172 days after the first Directive to correct the Investigator-determined items, and other than a few items, did not correct the Directive items. Complainant argued that this was joint venture with an unlicensed person and that Respondent is 100% responsible for the Directive items. Complainant argued that revocation was an appropriate discipline along with a civil penalty for each of the 53 violations.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s license history and status with the Registrar on August 18, 2025. Respondent’s license record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 332509 is active, with one open cases, which is the instant case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101 et seq.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) authorizes the Registrar to impose discipline on an ROC licensee or anyone named on the license when a licensee commits certain acts or failures to act while engaged in contracting.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(B) authorizes the Registrar to investigate any “acts of a contractor in this state on the written complaint of any owner or contractor that is a party to a construction contract or a person who suffers a material loss or injury as a result of a contractor's failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner or in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards.”

Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with the Arizona contracting laws or workmanship standards.

Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119.

In this case, Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119(A) and Ariz. Admin. Code Section R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Suprior 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).

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

5. Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").

6. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

7. The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

8. The December 13, 2024 Amended Directive mandated that that Respondent was the responsible party to take the Investigator–determined corrective actions regarding Complainant’s project on fifty (50) items. Additionally, Respondent was directed to submit a written contract form that complies with particular statutory requirements. Although an appropriate period of time was given, Respondent did not perform any corrective work to complete those Directive items. Further, there is no evidence that Respondent submitted a written contract form that is in compliance with the stated statutory requirements.

9. Mr. Campa’s last determination as to what to do about this project was that he would go through the administrative hearing process in order to have a final determination on what Respondent needed to do. Respondent has already been notified, through each of the Directives, regarding the actions that needed to be taken in this matter. Licensed contractors are expected to know how to do construction work, at a minimum, within their scope, and when ordered to perform corrective work by the appropriate means, they are expected to do that work in an appropriate manner.

10. Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that each of the Investigator-determined workmanship issues set forth in the December 13, 2024 Amended Directive existed. Thus, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was in violation of the statutory and regulatory provisions set forth in the Registrar’s January 14, 2025 Citation as follows:

a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a). The departure from or disregard of plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.

b. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b). The departure from or disregard of a building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.

c. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) and Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A). The violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar, namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a) requiring that a contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

d. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) and Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(B). The violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar, namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(b) stating that a contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

e. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a). Attempting to evade this chapter by aiding or abetting a licensed or unlicensed person.

f. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) -Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1124(B). The failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter, specifically Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1124(B) regarding the licensee’s “ROC [License number]” being posted at the work site, on the estimate and contract paperwork, and on all documents utilized in correspondence with customers or potential customers.

g. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12)-Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158. The failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter, specifically Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158, regarding the requisite elements of a contract.

h. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16). Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.

i. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22). The failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar impose discipline on Respondent’s ROC License No. 332509 as follows:

Revocation on the effective date of the Registrar’s final Order in this matter; and,

Respondent to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 payable to the Registrar on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final Order. Further, 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 may 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, August 18, 2025.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

John Smith

[email redacted]

Stephen J. Anthony, Esq.

ANTHONY LAW GROUP

[email redacted]

Brenda J. Lee Esq.

Lee & Travers PLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff