ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-08385-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
1K CONSTRUCTION & FINISHING LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Full Frame Construction LLC,
License Nos. ROC 324834, 325450,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-08385-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 25, 2025
APPEARANCES: Jason Quan, Qualifying Party, represented 1K Construction & Finishing LLC (“Complainant”). No person appeared on behalf of Full Frame Construction LLC (“Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Full Frame Construction LLC is the holder of License Nos. 324834 and 325450 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”).
On July 24, 2024, the ROC received from Complainant a Non-Payment Complaint Form (“Complaint”) alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant on eight (8) projects from February and March in 2024. Complainant had received partial payment on two (2) of the projects. In the Complaint, Complainant alleged that its invoices in the total amount of $35,066.42 remained unpaid.
On September 17, 2024, ROC issued its Citation citing Respondent for alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statute (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1154(A)(10), failure to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for services rendered.
On October 4, 2024, Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation. Respondent indicated that Complainant had not obtained “contracts, agreements, or change orders before starting any work.” Respondent stated that Complainant’s license classification did not allow it to perform the type of work that was being invoiced and that Complainant should be “cited for failure to properly obtain a written contract with an agreed upon scope of work, start and completion times, detailed materials list, and most of all a cost for all the above so that everyone is clear and can agree and know what to expect of each other. Respondent stated that it was not in agreement with Complainant’s estimates and that Respondent would not have been the one to contract with Complainant for the work.
The Complaint was not resolved informally and the ROC subsequently set the matter for hearing. Following a continuance, the matter went to hearing; at that hearing in February 2025, the parties discussed the matter and determined to come to a verbal agreement regarding possible settlement. The matter was then continued to allow the parties to resolve the matter.
At another hearing setting in June 2025, the parties again discussed the matter and determined to work towards possible settlement. The matter was again continued to allow the parties to resolve the matter.
By ORDER dated June 19, 2025, the matter was re-set for hearing to convene on August 25, 2025 in the event the matter was not resolved.
Respondent failed to appear at the August 25, 2025 hearing to present any evidence.
At hearing, Mr. Quan testified that, on these projects, Respondent had paid other subcontractors but not Complainant. Mr. Quan explained that their agreement had been that Respondent would work out some of the monies owed to Complainant by helping Complainant on Complainant’s own home build; however, that had not come to fruition.
Mr. Quan acknowledged that Respondent had paid $7,000.00 towards the invoices’ balance due, leaving a new balance due of $28,066.42.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and has been properly brought before OAH for adjudication.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution is ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.
Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of 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.” 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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,
[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
The hearing evidence established that Respondent was invoiced a net total of $35,066.42 owed to Complainant for services performed. The hearing record established that Respondent had paid $7,000.00 toward the net balance and, as a result of which, the new net balance due to Complainant is $28,066.42.
Respondent failed to appear and, thus, failed to demonstrate any statutory justification or excuse for failing to issue payment to Complainant. Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the services performed by Complainant.
Based on the hearing record, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $28,066.42 for services obtained from Complainant in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that, on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar suspend Full Frame Construction LLC License Nos. ROC 324834 and 325450 until Respondent has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents which establish that Respondent has paid Complainant $28,066.42 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar does receive and accept Respondent’s evidence that Respondent has paid Complainant $28,066.42 in certified funds, the Registrar shall close the matter.
No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of the outstanding $28,066.42 to Complainant.
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, September 12, 2025.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail or e-mail to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
1K CONSTRUCTION & FINISHING LLC
[email redacted]
Full Frame Construction LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff