ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-06815-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Joe Hoffman,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

The Builders of Arizona, Inc.

License No. ROC 311649,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-06815-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 1, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Joe Hoffman appeared on his own behalf, with his wife, Patricia Hoffman. Doug Green and Preston Newberry appeared on behalf of Respondent The Builders of Arizona, Inc. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Jim Dimond appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant Joe Hoffman’s Exhibits 2, 3 and 6

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Builders of Arizona, Inc. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 311649 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about November 2, 2022, Joe Hoffman (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform the structural framing, labor only, for an RV garage and home, “Complete to Construction Drawings,” to include all hardware above slab, and to install a vapor barrier per plans and specifications.

On or about June 14, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Jim Dimond. After an August 5, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Dimond issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated November 6, 2024, that provided 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 Tuesday, November 26, 2024.

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

Complaint Item: 2 - Custom front door was not installed correctly per manufacturer's instructions - house

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant maintains that fasteners are to be installed from behind.

The fasteners installed are in the jamb wood and are countersunk and not filled.

Complaint Item: 5 - Faux beam on rear porch is 3 1/2 inches lower than its mirror image beam on opposite side - house

Investigator’s Observation: This is as stated and the respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 7 - Mitre cut on rear porch beam has excessive gap and crooked cut – house

Investigator’s Observation: This is at east end of the rear patio beam and the miter is poorly cut.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 8 - Facia board on west side of house is "waved" by several inches

Investigator’s Observation: This is as stated and the respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION:

Complaint Item: 1 - LP Board was not offset on 2nd and 3rd row height per manufacturer's instructions on RV garage

Investigator’s Observation: Per the complainant, this item is no longer an issue and no action is required of the respondent

Complaint Item: 3 - Faux beams above front porch entry were cut with excessive gaps - visible gaps from a distance – house

Investigator’s Observation: These are rough sawn beams and it appears that this is the result of expansion and contraction and is not a workmanship item.

No action is required of the respondent

Complaint Item: 4 - Custom faux beams on rear porch were cut with excessive gaps - visible from a distance – house

Investigator’s Observation: This is the same issue as the front of the house and I cannot determine that this is the result of workmanship.

Complaint Item: 6 - Section of roof is not properly supported and nailed in attic – house

Investigator’s Observation: The attic/underside of roof would have been inspected by the authority having jurisdiction for both framing and insulation as this appears to be a conditioned space.

The county approved the installation and no action is required of the respondent at this time.

All errors in original.

After the November 26, 2024 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Dimond ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive. Thereafter, Investigator Dimond forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Dimond testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes and the Written Directive. Investigator Dimond testified that there is a single family residence on site and that the Complaint is only concerning the home, not the detached garage. During his testimony, Investigator Dimond referenced the photographs he took at the Jobsite Inspection that depict the noted deficiencies.

Regarding Complaint Item number 3, Investigator Dimond testified that he did not verify this item because he believes that “shrinkage” is normal given the extreme temperatures in the geographical area and the size of the beams.

Mr. Hoffman testified that Respondent made no effort to comply with the Written Directive notwithstanding multiple communications stating that Respondent would perform the required corrections.

Mr. Hoffman testified regarding “longitudinal shrinkage” and cited to several sources regarding the subject. However, Mr. Hoffman did not submit the documentation he referenced during his testimony as exhibits. Mr. Hoffman asserted that the gaps referenced in Complaint Items 3 and 4 existed from the time of the beam installation. However, Mr. Hoffman did not provide probative evidence of such assertion.

Preston Newberry, superintendent for Respondent, testified that Respondent did not have an opportunity to perform the corrective work. However, Mr. Newberry did not provide any credible evidence establishing a denial of access.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 15, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 311649 was first issued on February 23, 2017, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only one open complaint, however, it is not the instant Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence established that Respondent failed to install the front door per manufacturer’s specifications. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded plans or specifications in a material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. 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 Number 311649 for a period of five (5) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) 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, July 16, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

The Builders of Arizona, Inc.

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Joe Hoffman

[email redacted]

Jim Dimond

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff