ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-08741-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-11-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Master Hands Painting LLC,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Kapella Group LLC
License No. ROC 330554,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-08741-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 7, 2024
APPEARANCES: Brittany Gonzalez appeared on behalf of Complainant Master Hands Painting LLC. Respondent Kapella Group LLC was represented by Richard Noel.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-18 and Respondent’s Exhibits 1-5 were admitted into evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On September 23, 2024, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on November 7, 2024 at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was being conducted on the charges made in the complaint and citation that were served on Respondent Kapella Group LLC on August 28, 2024.
Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent holds License No. 330554 issued by ROC.
Complainant is Master Hands Painting LLC.
In June 2024, Complainant was hired to perform paining in a project for which Respondent was the general contractor, and the contracted price was $4,069.00.
On August 1, 2024, Complainant filed with ROC a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent owed Complainant $4,578.37.
The hearing was convened on November 7, 2024. Brittany Gonzalez and Melissa Brown appeared as witnesses.
Ms. Gonzalez testified that it was understood that this was to be a three-day job and when her crew arrived they were informed that now there were two be two different colors and that the painting could not start in all areas, as some drywall repairs needed to be completed first.
In addition, Ms. Gonzalez testified that on the third day, her crew was asked if they could finish the following day, but they could not as Complainant had another job scheduled. Ms. Gonzalez testified that she attempted to schedule the work to be completed the next Tuesday, however, she was informed by Ms. Brown that Respondent hired another contractor to complete the job.
Ms. Gonzales then sent a final invoice for the work performed as well as the change order for the change in paint. That total invoice was $4,578.37.
Finally, Ms. Gonzalez testified that currently, after including interest due to non-payment, the total amount owed was $9,523.67.
Ms. Brown testified that she requested that Ms. Gonzales revise the invoice to reflect the work which was actually performed, and objected to paying the full invoice as Complainant did not complete the job.
Further, Ms. Brown testified that Complainant was able to work on about 80% of the project, while waiting for the remaining drywall repairs to be completed.
Ms. Brown also testified that on the third day she spoke with the painters about coming back the next day, but they informed her they had another job. Ms. Brown testified that she tried to call Ms. Gonzalez to confirm a fourth date, but she never received a call back, so Respondent hired a different company to finish the work.
Finally, Ms. Brown testified that she believed that around $3,000.00 was an appropriate amount to pay for the work completed and the materials used.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The 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.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750.00 for materials purchased and work performed in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. From the credible evidence provided, the amount due at least in this matter, is $3,000.00. There was no dispute that work was performed on the job. Further, there was no dispute that Respondent failed to pay any amount due whether it was $9,523.67, $4,578.37, or $3,000.00. Simply put, zero payment was not acceptable.
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).
Thus, Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $3,000.00.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Kapella Group LLC’s license number 330554 be suspended until the Registrar receives proof that it has paid to Master Hands Painting LLC $3,000.00.
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, November 22, 2024.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Master Hands Painting LLC
[email redacted]
Richard Noel
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff