ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-08217-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Margarita Madrid,

COMPLAINANT

Jesus Moreno Torrez

DBA: Yuma Painting

License No. ROC 133364,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-08217-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 13, 2025, February 3, 2025 and May 19, 2025.

APPEARANCES: Complainant Margarita Madrid appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Jesus Moreno Torrez was represented by Linda Garcia. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Ruben Perez appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits A-E and 1-25 were admitted into evidence. Respondent’s Exhibits 1-53 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Jesus Moreno Torrez LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 133364 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about June 18, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent paint three rooms in her home in Yuma, Arizona. The total contract price was $8,600.00 and Complainant paid $5,000.00.

On or about July 15, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Ruben Perez. The jobsite inspection was performed on August 8, 2024.

Investigator Perez then issued a Written Directive on or about November 16, 2024, which provided in pertinent part 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, September 4, 2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: Remove popcorn ceiling-bedrooms (3), living room & dining room-not textured evenly

Investigator’s Observation: Ceiling in dining room was observed with a small area with texture not consistent with rest of knock down texture. Ceiling in Southwest bedroom was observed with a small area with texture near ceiling fan not consistent with rest of knock down texture. Southwest bedroom ceiling was also observed with excess rough texture at ceiling fan. Living room ceiling was observed with crack on drywall near AC duct cover. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complaint Item 2A: Paint inside of house-Paint left on door knobs/hinges of doors/around ceiling fans

Investigator’s Observation: Some door hinges were observed with excess paint. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complaint Item 2B: Paint inside of house-Missed some areas

Investigator’s Observation: Kitchen ceiling, wall behind kitchen sink, wall at hallway vanity were observed missing paint to adequately cover walls. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complaint Item 2C: Paint inside of house-no straight lines

Investigator’s Observation: Master bedroom closet and Southwest bedroom closet were observed with paint lines not straight. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complaint Item 2D: Paint inside of house-walls/ceiling paint/drops

Investigator’s Observation: Window shutters in Southwest bedroom were observed with excess paint on them. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complaint Item 5B: Drywall repairs/looks tacky in hall closet

Investigator’s Observation: Closet near entry door was observed with unfinished repair (inside wall bottom right corner). Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Items added at inspection

Complaint Item 6: Uneven edges, paint peeling and unsealed holes in kitchen

Investigator’s Observation: Door leading to garage was observed with excess paint on top left cabinet door and trim. Door leading to garage was also observed with paint peeling at top of door frame. Kitchen ceiling was observed with unsealed holes. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complaint Item 9: Grout at door frames have excess paint

Investigator’s Observation: Grout at kitchen door opening (leading to living room), grout at middle bedroom door frame and grout at hallway bathroom door frame were observed with excess paint. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complaint Item 10: Toilet paper holder in master bathroom is not straight

Investigator’s Observation: Toilet paper holder in master bathroom was observed installed not straight. Respondent offered to fix issue. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complaint Item 12: Left front door molding is cut too short

Investigator’s Observation: Front door molding (interior left) was observed 1/8” shorter than molding on right side. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complaint Item 14: Some air conditioning duct covers are entirely painted and others are not painted

Investigator’s Observation: Some ceiling air conditioning duct covers were observed entirely painted and other duct covers were not entirely painted. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108...

(All errors contained in the original).

Investigator Perez conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection on September 10, 2024, and noted the following in pertinent part:

Compliance Findings: Respondent did not comply with written directive. Findings are noted in italic font below each compliance item.

Complaint Item 1: Remove popcorn ceiling-bedrooms (3), living room & dining room-not textured evenly

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

This item was corrected as per written directive.

Complaint Item 2A: Paint inside of house-Paint left on door knobs/hinges of doors/around ceiling fans

Investigator’s Observation: Some door hinges were observed with excess paint. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

This item was corrected as per written directive.

Complaint Item 2B: Paint inside of house-Missed some areas

Investigator’s Observation: Kitchen ceiling, wall behind kitchen sink, wall at hallway vanity were observed missing paint to adequately cover walls. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

This item was not complied with as wall behind kitchen sink was observed in same condition as during initial inspection.

Complaint Item 2C: Paint inside of house-no straight lines

Investigator’s Observation: Master bedroom closet and Southwest bedroom closet were observed with paint lines not straight. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complainant reported this item was corrected as per written directive

Complaint Item 2D: Paint inside of house-walls/ceiling paint/drops

Investigator’s Observation: Window shutters in Southwest bedroom were observed with excess paint on them. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

This item was not complied with as repairs done damaged paint on window shutter.

Complaint Item 5B: Drywall repairs/looks tacky in hall closet

Investigator’s Observation: Closet near entry door was observed with unfinished repair (inside wall bottom right corner). Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complainant reported this item was corrected as per written directive.

Items added at inspection

Complaint Item 6: Uneven edges, paint peeling and unsealed holes in kitchen

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complainant reported this item was corrected as per written directive.

Complaint Item 9: Grout at door frames have excess paint

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

This item was corrected as per written directive.

Complaint Item 10: Toilet paper holder in master bathroom is not straight

Investigator’s Observation: Toilet paper holder in master bathroom was observed installed not straight. Respondent offered to fix issue. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

This item was not complied with as toilet paper holder was not straight (by 1⁄4” at 6”).

Complaint Item 12: Left front door molding is cut too short

Investigator’s Observation: Front door molding (interior left) was observed 1/8” shorter than molding on right side. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

This item was corrected as per written directive.

Complaint Item 14: Some air conditioning duct covers are entirely painted and others are not painted

Investigator’s Observation: Some ceiling air conditioning duct covers were observed entirely painted and other duct covers were not entirely painted. Respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS 32-1154(A) (3) specifically to Rule 4-9-108

Complainant reported this item was corrected as per written directive. . .

On September 18, 2024, 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(c); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158; A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about September 25, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about October 9, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

The hearing took place on three dates as the parties agreed to allow Respondent to complete the Directive.

At hearing, Investigator Perez testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Perez testified that the painting in the kitchen (ceiling and backsplash) and hallway vanity was incomplete, there was paint spillage on the shutters in the southwest bedroom, and the toilet paper holder was not installed correctly and these were workmanship issues which remained uncorrected prior to hearing. As to the shutters, the paint was removed but the shutters were left unfinished.

Further, Investigator Perez testified that Respondent license was a CR-34 which did not allow for it to install baseboards.

Finally, Investigator Perez testified that the handwritten contract, did not comply with Arizona law.

Complainant testified that Respondent came four to five times to try to remedy not only the issues in the Directive, but other issues as well.

Further, Complainant testified that all matters, but for the shutters, had been resolved. As to the shutters, Complainant testified that while the shutters were repainted on February 13, 2025, there were still areas which remained unfished, and that Respondent never stated that he needed to finish the shutter work after that date.

Mr. Torrez testified that he had been licensed since April 1998, and this was his only complaint.

As to the shutters, Mr. Torrez testified that on February 13, 2025, he removed the shutters and spray painted the same outside twice, and reinstalled them. Mr. Torrez further testified that Complainant’s daughter said they looked good.

In addition, Mr. Torrez testified that he frequently had replaced and installed baseboards as it was a necessary part of paining.

Finally, as to the elements of a contract, Mr. Torrez testified that the sample contract in his Exhibit 50, now met all of the required elements, and is using that form moving forward.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 4, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 133364 was first issued on April 1, 1998, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “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).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was no violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(C), as there was no evidence that Yuma had not adopted building codes or specific provisions relating to professional industry standards.

The preponderance of the evidence established that the contract was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158. Further, the sample contract in Exhibit 50 still did not comply, as it did not have the estimated date of completion.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent knowingly performed and charged for work which was beyond the scope of its license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16). The tribunal was not persuaded that A,R,S. § 32-1105(D) allows Respondent to install the baseboards.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to fully complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued, as the sample contract still did not comply with the relevant statute. 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 No. 339199 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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 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 Respondent be ordered to provide the Registrar with a proper sample contract which complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158. It is recommended that Respondent’s license remain suspended until it complies with the same.

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, June 4, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Linda Garcia

[email redacted]

Margarita Madrid

2239 W 17th Pl

Yuma, AZ 85364

By: OAH Staff