ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2024A-09040-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-09
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Linda Paul,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Cityluxe Companies LLC
DBA: Az’s Best Roofing
License No. ROC 286561,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-09040-RFA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 19, 2025.
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin appeared for the Registrar of Contractors. Linda Paul appeared for Complainant. Don McElwain appeared for Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar’s Exhibits 1 through 10.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Linda Paul (Complainant) submitted a Recovery Fund Claim.
On or about March 18, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) issued a NOTICE AND ORDER OF RECOVERY FUND CLAIM DENIAL. It stated as follows:
On or about September 13, 2022, Linda Paul (“Complainant”) entered into a residential construction contract with Cityluxe Companies LLC DBA: AZ’s Best Roofing (“Respondent”) license no. ROC 286561 to perform roofing repair work. The work was performed at Complainant’s residence located at 13720 N. 98th Ave. Unit B, Sun City, AZ 85351.
On or about August 8, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors alleging being scammed by Respondent of the project. The Registrar’s Investigator conducted a jobsite inspection, which confirmed poor work of the project . A citation was issued to Respondent that ultimately resulted in the discipline of Respondent’s license.
On or about January 11, 2025, Complainant filed a Residential Recovery Fund claim. In review of the claim and all supporting documentation, it was determined that Complainant is not eligible to access the Recovery Fund. It was determined that Respondent’s license was revoked when the underlying contract was signed, when the first payment was made, and when the underlying work first commenced.
None of those facts were contested. The Complainant and Respondent testified that another individual was committing fraud by pretending to be Respondent, and Complainant fell victim to that individual. They both testified that Complainant should receive a recovery fund payout.
Respondent’s license was revoked on or about July 12, 2022, and Complainant’s contract was entered on or about September 17, 2022.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, 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:
1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.
2. 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.
A.R.S. § 32-1132 requires that a contractor have been appropriately licensed before a recovery fund payment can be made. Specifically,
C. In order for a claimant to be eligible for an award from the residential contractors' recovery fund, the contractor whose actions damaged the claimant must have been appropriately licensed at one of the following times:
1. The date that the underlying contract was signed.
2. The date that the first payment was made.
3. The date that the underlying work first commenced.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect by 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.”
In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s license was not active during any of the three relevant periods. Accordingly, Complainant is not eligible for access to the Recovery Fund.
The Recovery Fund serves a limited purpose; accordingly, many harms caused by contractors and resulting from construction cannot be remedied through the Recovery Fund.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Complainant’s appeal be denied.
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 9, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Cityluxe Companies LLC
1204 N 91st Ave # 11802
Tolleson, AZ 85353
Linda Paul
[email redacted]
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff