ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-07763-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Christopher Peterman
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Elite Home Builders LLC
License No. ROC 337328
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-07763-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 2, 2025
APPEARANCES: Christopher Peterman (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of himself. Jairo Aparicio appeared on behalf of Elite Home Builders, LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On February 14, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors, (hereinafter
“Registrar” or “ROC”), issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on March 20, 2025, by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. The hearing date was continued to May 2, 2025.
2. The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the Citation and Complaint. Through the Citation, the ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Arizona Revised Statutes (hereinafter “A.R.S.”) §§ 32- 1154(A)(1),(12), and (22); A.R.S. § 32-1158 and Arizona Administrative Code (hereinafter “A.A.C.”) R4-9-108(A).
3. On or about October 13, 2022, Complainant and Respondent entered into a residential remodeling project for the amount of $69,699.00. Complainant paid Respondent in full for the project.
4. Respondent did not provide Complainant with a written contract that advised Complainant of his right to file a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent, for an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Furthermore, Respondent did not include an estimated date of completion in the contract.
5. On or about July 24, 2023, Respondent started work.
6. On or about July 7, 2024, Respondent stopped work.
7. Complainant subsequently filed a complaint with the ROC alleging abandonment on the part of Respondent.
8. On or about November 19, 2024, ROC Investigator John Wiskow conducted a job-site inspection.
9. On November 20, 2024, the Registrar issued a Directive directing Respondent to complete the following complaint item, by appropriate means, no later than Friday, December 11, 2024:
Complaint Item: 1 - This was a supposed 3 month project that has now been
drug out to 18 months. Some weeks no one comes at all.
Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The project has stalled. The project
should be completed per contract.
Contractor should finish project by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after
submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
10. On January 14, 2025, the Investigator Wiskow conducted a compliance
job-site inspection. Investigator Wiskow observed that Respondent had failed to complete the project.
11. On July 18, 2024, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license for alleged violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(1),(12),and (22); A.R.S. § 32-1158 and A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
12. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
13. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
14. A hearing was held on May 2, 2025. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Jairo Aparicio testified on behalf of Respondent.
15. Complainant explained that the project should have only lasted three months and that Respondent abandoned the project.
15. Mr. Aparicio stated that there was an eight month delay in construction because Respondent was waiting to receive finalized plans from the architect and a permit from the city. Mr. Aparico denied that Respondent abandoned the job.
16. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, Respondent provided insufficient evidence to establish valid justification for failing to complete the job.
17. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on May 22, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on March 25, 2022, and is suspended. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Such prior License record also shows that one complaint was resolved or settled by Respondent, or withdrawn by the complainant, after the issuance of a corrective work order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the ROC’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
The suspended status of Respondent’s license does not deprive Complainant of his right to prosecute the Complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
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).
5. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the ROC’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent abandoned the contract, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
7. The preponderance of evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
8. The undisputed evidence established that Respondent’s contract did not include a statement that the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar for alleged violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1158. Respondent’s contract did not include an estimated date of completion, which is a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) and A.R.S. § 32-1158.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Elite Home Builders LLC’s license number 337328 for three 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. section 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. sections 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, May 22, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Christopher Peterman
[email redacted]
Elite Home Builders LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff