ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-07675-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-21
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Michael Turner,
COMPLAINANT
v.
J.G. Home Remodeling and Renovations LLC
License No. ROC 341142,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-07675-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 3, 2025 at 1:00pm
APPEARANCES: Michael Turner, Complainant.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”)
FINDINGS OF FACT
J.G. Home Remodeling and Renovations LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 341142 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about June 19, 2024, Michael Turner (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a remodel project to extend an existing porch in the backyard and add a cement pad to the front yard. The contract failed to include: the name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description, the estimated date of completion, the total amount of the project with applicable taxes, and no information regarding the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar with the Registrar's contact information.
The work on the project began on or about June 16, 2024, after Respondent determined that no permit was needed to move forward on the project. The contracted amount for the totality of the project was $4,600.00. Complainant paid out $2,760.00 to Respondent to get the project underway.
On or about June 20, 2024, Respondent poured concrete for the front porch and told Complainant they would be back around June 21 or June 22, 2024, with wood to build out the back porch.
Respondent did not return back to the worksite after June 20, 2024.
On July 8, 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 Mike Springer. Investigator Springer set up a jobsite inspection on September 11, 2024, at 10:00am. Respondent was not present for the jobsite inspection. After the jobsite inspection, Investigator Springer issued a Written Directive to Respondent 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 September 30, 2024.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 2 – Aggregate showing throughout slurry on surface of concrete. Inadequate finish throughout surfaces.
Investigator’s Observation: Aggregate can be seen along entire wall against house. Poor finish throughout. (Rear slab)
. . . .
Complaint Item: 3 – Exterior toe downs around perimeter does not meet code requirement. Voids visible around edges throughout.
Investigator’s Observation: Slab is less than 2 inches thick in areas (Front slab) No support under edges, native dirt used per Complainant.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 7 – Irrigation box was not leveled as discussed in project scope.
Investigator’s Observation: Irrigation box is not flush with slap, tripping hazard.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 8 – Concrete surface was brushed, not smooth surface as discussed.
Investigator’s Observation: Slabs have very rough brush finish, existing slab next to it is smooth.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 9 – Expansion joint not used as discussed between pad sections.
Investigator’s Observation: No expansion joint used against house.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 10 – Surface full of voids and divots throughout.
Investigator’s Observation: There are several divots in the rear slab.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 11 – Site debris and concrete spoils left in front and rear. Concrete splash left on home exterior walls.
Investigator’s Observation: Walls of home have concrete splashed over painted surfaces.
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Complainant never heard from Respondent. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Springer was notified that no corrective work had been performed.
On October 16, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00pm on March 3, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. On December 31, 2024, a Google Meet order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties on how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on March 3, 2025.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Hearing Evidence
Complainant testified that he had concerns that the project needed a permit through the County to perform the work. Complainant testified that Respondent informed him that they spoke with a Cochise County representative and were informed that they did not need a permit for this concrete work. Complainant testified that after Respondent poured the concrete, Juan Gonzalez, representative from Respondent, informed him that when the concrete began to dry that he needed to sprinkle water on the concrete to help it dry. Complainant informed Mr. Gonzalez that he was not satisfied with the pour and Mr. Gonzalez told Complainant that “it would get better over time.” Complainant testified that he had elevation concerns with wash out under the concrete pad, the new concrete did not match the existing pad, and the lack of rebar, amongst other issues. In addition, Complainant testified that Respondent never came back to finish the job and his communications to Respondent went unanswered. Complainant, also testified that he never signed a contract and when he saw the estimate, it did not have his proper address and a lot of scribbles.
Respondent explained in its Answer to the Registrar that they were going to bring the materials to Complainant but did not because Complainant told them not to come back.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 18, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 341142 was first issued on October 6, 2022, and was revoked on December 5, 2024, as a result of discipline. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints and five complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of his right to prosecute his complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, Investigator Springer’s photos coupled with Complainant’s testimony clearly showed that Respondent’s work was subpar and incomplete. As such, 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 workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
In addition, the evidence established that Respondent’s estimate/contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).
Furthermore, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 341142 for a period of five days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), 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 terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty 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, March 21, 2025.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
J.G Home Remodeling and Renovations LLC
5012 Raffaele Dr
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
[email redacted]
Mike Springer
[email redacted]
Michael Turner
7249 South Hall Drive
Hereford, AZ 85615
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff