ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-07696-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Steve Bittner,

COMPLAINANT,

Four Star Home Repairs, LLC

License No. ROC 344550,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-07696-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 29, 2025

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover III represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Gail Mathews appeared as a witness for the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Steve Bittner appeared on his own behalf. Alex Lindberg, Esq. represented Respondent Four Star Home Repairs, LLC. Robert Mullis appeared on behalf of Respondent Four Star Home Repairs, LLC, with his personal attorney, Josh Butner.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The parties stipulated to the admission of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ Exhibits 1-18, Complainant Steve Bittner’s Exhibits 1 and 2, and Respondent Four Star Home Repairs, LLC’s Exhibits 1-7.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) issued License Number 344550 to Four Star Home Repairs, LLC (“Respondent”).

On or about July 9, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Steve Bittner (“Complainant”) alleging poor work with respect to Respondent’s contracted scope of work. Respondent’s scope of work as it relates to the instant matter, included installation of flooring.

As a result of the Complaint, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. An administrative hearing was held. In the March 3, 2025 Decision, Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox considered Respondent’s arguments and concluded that Respondent violated all of the charged provisions of this State’s contracting laws.

On March 27, 2025, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order accepting the March 3, 2025 Decision and imposing a one day suspension. The effective date of that Order was May 6, 2025. Respondent did not appeal the Registrar’s Final Administrative Decision and Order.

Complainant thereafter filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“the Fund”) to recover the cost of performing the corrective work. As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different licensed contractors that Complainant had received to perform the repair to the project.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s actual damages were $21,672.95. Respondent requested a hearing, believing the award was too high. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative award. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on September 29, 2025.

Hearing Evidence

The Written Directive from the Registrar specified the following in pertinent part:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). . . .

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Ceramic tile in sunroom not level, crooked pattern, hollow tiles.

Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Inspection presented floor substrate unlevel, pattern in floor tile crooked, and at least 1/3 of the floor tiles are hollow.

Complaint Item: 3 - Floor not leveled before LVP flooring installation throughout.

Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Floor substrate unleveled when LVP placed

Complaint Item: 5 - Significant gaps between flooring types.

Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Transitions have spaces greater than 1" in places with no trim or transition molding in place at time of inspection. Complainant advised the molding just came off

Complaint Item: 6 - Significant difference in height between flooring types, transition strips missing and/or improperly installed.

Investigator’s Observation: UNVERIFIED: Tile and LVP are different heights. This is not an issue that can be addressed in the complaint process.

Complaint Item: 7 - Quarter round trim missing throughout house.

Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Observed missing Quarter Round in the Living room and around the pantry cabinet.

Complaint Item: 8 - Sloppy baseboard installation and caulk job, nails not set.

Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Through out house, baseboards installed with poor paint, nails not recessed and puttied,

Complaint Item: 10 - Closet doors not re-installed.

Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Closet doors not installed upon inspection

Complaint Item: 13 - 3 pallets and a bag of concrete not removed from front of house.

Investigator’s Observation: VERIFIED: Pallets still stacked in driveway

At the Compliance Inspection, the following was determined by Registrar Investigator Brandon Smith:

Compliance Findings:

Complaint Item: 1 - Ceramic tile in sunroom not level, crooked pattern, hollow tiles.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: VERIFIED: Inspection presented floor substrate unlevel, pattern in floor tile crooked, and at least 1/3 of the floor tiles are hollow.

Compliance Observation: 87 tiles out of 204 are hollow. Imperfections in floor levelness apparent throughout the floor.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 3 - Floor not leveled before LVP flooring installation throughout.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: VERIFIED: Floor substrate unlevel when LVP placed

Compliance Observation: Imperfections in floor levelness apparent throughout the floor.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 5 - Significant gaps between flooring types.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: VERIFIED: Transitions have spaces greater than 1" in places with no trim or transition molding in place at time of inspection. Complainant advised the molding just came off

Compliance Observation: Molding and construction adhesive removed from floor upon inspection. On the transition in the kitchen, the seam is inconsistent, jagged, greater than 1” on one side and approximately 3/8” reveal in the other.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 7 - Quarter round trim missing throughout house.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: VERIFIED: Observed missing Quarter Round in the Livingroom and around the pantry cabinet.

Compliance Observation: Quarter Round missing around cabinets and other perimeter areas on floor.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 8 - Sloppy baseboard installation and caulk job, nails not set.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: VERIFIED: Through out house baseboards installed with poor paint, nails not recessed and puttied,

Compliance Observation: Not completed

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 10 - Closet doors not re-installed.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: UNVERIFIED: Closet doors not installed upon inspection

Compliance Observation: Upon reviewing Complainant’s response, I have changed this to UNVERIFIED. I have no way of knowing who was responsible for removing or installing closet doors.

Governing Rule: UNVERIFIED

☐ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 13 - 3 pallets and a bag of concrete not removed from front of house.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: UNVERIFIED: Pallets still stacked in driveway

Compliance Observation: Upon reviewing Complainants Response, I have changed this to UNVERIFIED. The Complainant’s account that he couldn’t remove the pallets due to the deposit value is reasonable.

Respondent contacted AC Philpott challenging the entirety of the complaint based on the assertion that he turned the job over to his insurance company and a offer was made to the complainants to resolve the matter. Respondent was instructed to provide

documentation of this from his insurance company so we could evaluate its impact on the complaint. Respondent never provided the documentation. Complainants provided this documentation via email to me. I uploaded the documents to the complaint file. Amount offered was not enough to pay for the work to be corrected. Complainants assert the amount offered from the insurance company would not cover the material required for the repairs.

At the outset of the hearing, the parties stipulated to Complainant’s eligibility to receive an award from the Fund, having satisfied the Registrar’s pre-requisites. Respondent indicated that it was only challenging the amount of the proposed award.

Gail Mathews, Legal Assistant and Claims Reviewer for the Fund, testified that she reviewed the Complaint, the Written Directive, the Compliance Jobsite findings, the March 27, 2025 Decision regarding the underlying Complaint, the payments made by Complainant, and the bids submitted by Complainant, in calculating Complainant’s actual damages.

Ms. Mathews testified that her calculations took into account the contract price of $15,080.00 and the payments made toward the contract price in the amount of $14,170.00, and concluded that there was a remaining balance on the contract in the amount of $910.00.

Complainant submitted two estimates for completion of the project to the Fund. Both bids were from licensed contractors. The bid from Sedona Flooring, LLC, doing business as Troy’s Flooring, LLC, was in the amount of $24,007.16. The bid from Cactus Flooring, LLC, doing business as A & R Flooring Brokers (“A & R”), was in the total amount of $23,260.63. Ms. Mathews compared the bids to the Written Directive and found that they were both in line with the requirements of the Written Directive. Ms. Mathews found that the A & R bid was the most reasonable, however she reduced the compensable amount by $667.68 which represented a 3% credit card surcharge, which is not compensable by the Registrar.

Ms. Mathews further reviewed a Repair Decline Letter that A & R provided to Complainant. The Repair Decline Letter indicates the following:

Due to the severity of the issues with the current tile and luxury vinyl plank flooring that has been installed by another contractor, we Cactus Flooring LLC dba A&R Flooring does not recommend doing any repairs in place of removing the existing flooring. Almost all previous work completed was not done to code and we believe any attempted repair would only serve as a temporary solution, it would not extend the longevity of your flooring. The luxury vinyl plank flooring cannot be removed and reinstalled without completely voiding the products warranty as the locking mechanisms are not intended to be unlocked and then reengaged for a second installation. There is also a substantial amount of unfinished floor prep that must be completed in order for the flooring to lay properly and we would need to remove the existing material in order to prep the floor and meet the according industry standards. For these reasons we recommend that all the existing flooring be removed and new material installed.

After deducting the unpaid contract balance and the credit card surcharge amount, Ms. Mathews calculated Complainant’s compensable actual damages to be $21,672.95.

Complainant agreed with the Registrar’s determination and proposed award from the Fund.

During the course of the hearing, Respondent attempted to re-litigate the merits of the underlying Complaint. However, Respondent was advised by the Tribunal that the underlying matter has already been adjudicated, a final Order has been issued, and Respondent did not appeal the final Order. As such that Order remains final and cannot be re-litigated in this proceeding.

Respondent argued that the Registrar should have obtained competing bids from Respondent, however, Respondent failed to cite to any legal authority requiring the Registrar to do so, and had Respondent provided competing bids, the Registrar would have considered them. Respondent failed to do so.

Respondent also offered to perform the work itself, however, Respondent’s contracting license has been suspended since March 2025, for non-renewal and April 2025, for lack of bond, and therefore, does not have a valid contractor’s license.

Robert Mullis, Respondent’s representative, testified that the parties’ contract did not include removing the subfloor and he does not believe the entire floor needs to be replaced and that the floor can be repaired for less money.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

A.R.S. § 32-1132(A) provides that “[t]he residential contractors' recovery fund is established, to be administered by the registrar, for the benefit of a claimant damaged by an act, representation, transaction or conduct of a residential contractor licensed pursuant to this chapter that is in violation of this chapter or the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter.” The Registrar’s final decision in the underlying workmanship case giving rise to the instant matter establishes that Respondent’s work violated the sections of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) that were charged in the Citation.

For the purposes of an award under A.R.S. § 32-1132(A), A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B) provides as follows:

An award from the residential contractors' recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor's violation. Actual damages:

May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.

Must be established by bids supplied by or the value of work performed by a person that is licensed pursuant to this chapter if the person is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter.

When the Registrar has calculated the amount of a complainant’s compensable damages and proposed a payout from the Fund to which s/he is entitled, the calculation is a prima facie showing of the amount that the complainant is entitled to recover as a payout from the Fund. In this case, Respondent requested a hearing challenging the Recovery Fund payout. The burden of proof falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement.

In this case, Respondent, as the party contesting the Registrar’s Notice of Award, has the burden of proof to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Registrar’s proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect or contrary to law.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he 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.”

After consideration of all the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent did not meet its burden of proof. The Administrative Law Judge further concludes that Complainant is eligible for an award from the Fund and that the award proposed by the Fund accurately reflects Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $21,672.95.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund shall pay $21,672.95 to Complainant Steve Bittner.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under A.R.S. § 32-1139(B), the Registrar shall charge $21,672.95, plus interest at a rate of ten percent a year, to Respondent Four Star Home Repairs, LLC’s License Number 344550.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, October 8, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Four Star Home Repairs, LLC

[email redacted]

Steve Bittner

[email redacted]

Alexander Lindberg, Esq.

Law Office of Kara L. Klima

[email redacted]

Charles Hover III

Assistant Attorney General

Licensing and Enforcement Section

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff