ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-07431-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Roger Roy Rambo and

Suzanne Rambo,

COMPLAINANTS,

STATE CONSTRUCTION, LLC

License No. ROC 341999,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-07431-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 18, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainants Roger Rambo and Suzanne Rambo appeared on their own behalf. Zebula Doll appeared on behalf of Respondent State Construction, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Miles Crosby appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

State Construction, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 341999 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

In or about April 2024, Roger and Suzanne Rambo (“Complainants”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform repairs after fire and smoke damage at Complainants’ personal residence.

On or about July 8, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainants alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Miles Crosby. After a July 19, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Crosby issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated July 24, 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 Wednesday, August 14, 2024.

In Progress Work

At this time, a violation of state law cannot be established. Because the Respondents work is not completed and it’s considered work in progress, the Registrar cannot verify that Respondent’s work failed to meet minimum construction standards or violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3). At the completion of the project, if the work fails to meet minimum industry standards, Complainant can re-file a complaint against the Respondent.

As this project is currently in progress, the Written Directive is for the Respondent to obtain and comply with the Local Building Departments requirements and pass all inspections. The complaint will be closed but will still require the Respondent to comply with the LBD permit process and the Complainant may reopen the complaint if the Directive is not complied with in a reasonable and diligent manner. It would reasonable for this project to be complete in 90 days. The Complainant may reopen the complaint after that time if the Written Directive and contract fulfillment are not complied with.

To Reopen the Complaint, please email your Investigator.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - I went to county 6/27 and they said he needs permits. Zeb said started process 6/28.

Investigator’s Observation: No permit obtained. Respondent advised permit has been requested. The Respondent will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection.

Complaint Item: 2 - Load bearing beam appears to not be glued. Needs permit?

Investigator’s Observation: I observed this item as described. However, as this is in progress work, it will fall under item #1 and be subject to inspection by the local building department.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 3 - Contract says foil/kraft insulation. Used all kraft and said its ok, contract meant foil OR kraft

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to determine as this item has been covered by drywall. The ROC does not use destructive means to verify any items. However, the local building department may require the Respondent to verify. Respondent shall comply with the LBD.

Complaint Item: 4 - Wide gaps in drywall

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, insufficient evidence to prove or disprove complaint item.

Complaint Item: 5 - No firebox or bottom vent for chimney. No fire retardant, he says he plans to do later. Need permit?

Complaint Item: 6 - Left roof unprotected for months. Now it appears uneven and sloped between the chimney and skylight. He's hiring roofer

All errors in original.

A Closure Letter was issued with the Written Directive.

On or about October 25, 2024, Complainants requested that the Complaint be re-opened, and on November 6, 2024, Investigator Crosby conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection at which both parties were present.

Investigator Crosby’s Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes indicate the following:

Compliance Jobsite General Notes:

After the CJSI, the Respondent advised he was threatened by the Complainant. Respondent advised in an argument on Oct. 7, 2024, that the Complainant threatened to kill him. The Respondent did file a report with the Navajo County Sherriff’s Office on Oct. 8th. The Respondent requested that the Deputy, Sgt. Chisholm, not investigate the matter and only note the incident. (report included in case file)

I called the Complainant regarding the incident and he did not advise that he made any threats but did advise he and the Respondent were in an argument and that the Complainants wife had to stop him from walking towards the Respondent. As I am unable to determine what took place in the incident, I can only reference the report and reasonable timeline of the complaint.

The complaint was opened in July and an In Progress Work, Written Directive was issued with a diligent work compliance date of August 14, 2024, and closed, with the ability for the Complainant to Reopen. The Complainant requested the complaint be reopened on Oct. 25, 2024. This was more than enough time for the Respondent to comply with the Written Directive and fulfill the contract. Albeit troubling and inappropriate, the incident on Oct. 7th demonstrates the frustration and hostility of the parties. It is reasonable for the Complainant to be frustrated with the Respondent as the Respondent has exhibited an inability to fulfill the contract.

The fact remains that the Respondent had more than enough time to comply with the Written Direct and advise me, or the ROC, of the incident when it occurred. Regardless to any of this, contracting sometimes involves dealing with difficult client and the Respondent has a responsibility to draft a proper contract that can contain termination clauses while also meeting the requirements of ARS 32-1158.

Citation to be issued

Complaint Item: 1 - I went to county 6/27 and they said he needs permits. Zeb said started process 6/28.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: No permit obtained. Respondent advised permit has been requested. The Respondent will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection.

Compliance Observation: No permit was provided to me at the CJSI. Respondent advised he obtained one but has not provided it.

Complaint Item: 2 - Load bearing beam appears to not be glued. Needs permit?

Investigator’s Initial Observation: I observed this item as described. However, as this is in progress work, it will fall under item #1 and be subject to inspection by the local building department.

Compliance Observation: Respondent did not provide and engineering report to support the work that was completed. Upon my observation of the area, the Respondent advised the County BO advised an engineer would need to sign off on the work. The Respondent opened the area for county and engineers observation. The Respondent advised the engineer stated it was fine but also that the engineer advised a solution of correction. This is not typical of an engineer, as they would be liable for the solution if done as directed and the solution failed.

All errors in original.

Thereafter, Investigator Crosby 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)(b), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158, 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 Hearing, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Crosby testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection notes, the Written Directive, and the Compliance Jobsite Inspection notes. Investigator Crosby testified that he had no contact with either party until Complainants requested that the Complaint be re-opened. Investigator Crosby testified that he issued Warning Letters to Respondent for not having obtained a permit and for failing to comply with the statutory requirements for written contracts. Specifically, Investigator Crosby testified that there was no formal contract, but rather just a scope of work, and consequently, the parties’ contract lacked: i) the name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description; ii) the date the parties entered into the contract; iii) the estimated date of completion; and iv) the advisement that the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar.

Investigator Crosby also referenced the photographs he took during the Jobsite Inspection and Compliance Inspection to illustrate the deficiencies in workmanship and the state of the project. Investigator Crosby testified that the beam was self-manufactured by Respondent, there was no engineering report, no permit, and no inspection by the local building authority, and therefore, it is unknown if the beam is adequate. Investigator Crosby opined that the “load [looked] inadequately supported.” Investigator Crosby further testified that the strap installed by Respondent was installed improperly as it requires that every hole be fastened, and not nailed. Investigator Crosby testified that the beam as installed by Respondent is “inadequate and unsafe.”

Regarding Respondent’s allegation of physical threats by Mr. Rambo, Investigator Crosby testified that there was no evidence of physical threats and no investigation conducted because Respondent did not want an investigation.

Investigator Crosby testified that there were no allegations of denial of access, and a permit was not obtained.

Complainants agreed with Investigator Crosby’s testimony and Mr. Rambo expressed his frustration with the work that was performed by Respondent, as well as the fact that the project is not yet complete.

Zebula Doll, Respondent’s owner, testified that after he contracted with Complainants, he discovered that it was difficult to secure workers in the geographic area. Mr. Doll also testified that this was his first complaint and he was “not aware how to deal with it.” Mr. Doll testified that he believed he did not need a permit because it was an “insurance” project, however, he discovered that he was “incorrect.” Mr. Doll testified that he attempted to obtain a permit, however there were delays with the engineering report. Mr. Doll testified that the permit was obtained after the “90-day window” and therefore, “it was too late” and there was “no opportunity to rectify” the situation. Mr. Doll asserted that there was no issue with the workmanship.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 26, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 341999 was first issued on December 1, 2022, and was suspended on January 1, 2025, for non-renewal. Such prior License record also reflects that there are three open complaints, including 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.

Complainants bear 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 did not obtain a permit for the project notwithstanding that a permit was required. Therefore, Complainants established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainants 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 provide a written contract for the project to Complainants and that the scope of work failed to contain i) the name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description; ii) the date the parties entered into the contract; iii) the estimated date of completion; and iv) the advisement that the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar. Therefore, Complainants established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).

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, Complainants 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 341999 for a period of ten (10) 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.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine (9) terms required by A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) within thirty (30) days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, April 2, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

[email redacted]

Roger and Suzanne Rambo

[email redacted]

STATE CONSTRUCTION, LLC

[email redacted]

Miles Crosby

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff