ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-09434-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-18
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Victoria Perdomo,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Angle Homes, Inc.
License No. ROC 111258,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-09434-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 2, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Victoria Perdomo appeared on her own behalf, with her husband, John Chavira. Tyler Angle and Todd Richardson appeared on behalf of Respondent Angle Homes, Inc. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Cliff Corlett appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Respondent Angle Homes, Inc.’s June 23, 2025 Exhibits; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Angle Homes, Inc. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 111258 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about August 4, 2022, Victoria Perdomo (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for the purchase of a newly constructed home, constructed by Respondent. On or about November 16, 2022, Complainant moved in to the home.
On or about August 12, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the construction of the home and/or warranty work.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Cliff Corlett. After a September 20, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated October 2, 2024, that provided 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 or before October 28, 2024.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 3 - 3. Cabinet has scratches that the builder tried to repair and made worse.
Investigator’s Observation: The Workmanship Standards for Licensed
Contractors (WSLC) states that "Damage to manufactured surfaces must be reported at the time of the walkthrough inspection. If no walkthrough inspection is performed them the damage must be reported to the contractor within 10-days of occupancy".
The Respondent acknowledged that the cabinet damage was reported and attempts were made to correct. The repairs have not been acceptable.
RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT CABINET DAMAGE BY APPROPRIATE METHODS, MATCHING SURROUNDING AREAS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
Complaint Item: 4 - 4. Stucco falling off house cracking off.
Investigator’s Observation: Stucco is spalling at base of garage.
Stucco is also exhibiting small areas of exposed white spots.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY
APPROPRIATE METHODS MATCHING SURROUNDING AREAS AS
CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
Complaint Item: 6 - 6. Cracks in concrete.
Investigator’s Observation: The Workmanship Standards for Licensed
Contractors (WSLC) states that:
Improper expansion and/or control joints in driveways.
Driveways should have expansion joints at carport or garage and at curb or sidewalk. Control joints at least 1/5 the thickness of the slab should be placed no more than 10' apart.
Contractor should correct to provide proper control or expansion joints.
Respondent has not installed the required expansion material between garage slab and driveway creating expansion pressure between these slabs. Spalling concrete is a common occurrence with this kind of pressure.
RESPONDNET SHOULD PROPERLY INSTALL REQUIRED EXPANSION MATERIAL AND REPLACE THE DAMAGE DRIVEWAY SECTION(S).
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION:
Complaint Item: 1 - 1. Bathtub yellowing cracking from being left in the sun.
Investigator’s Observation: Bathtub repairs appeared to be acceptable.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTIONS REQUIRED.
Complaint Item: 2 - 2. Mirrors in master bedroom & bathroom # 1
& 2 have razor blade cuts.
Investigator’s Observation: The Workmanship Standards for Licensed
Contractors (WSLC) states that: "Damage to manufactured surfaces must be reported at the time of the walkthrough inspection. If no walkthrough inspection is performed them the damage must be reported to the contractor within 10-days of occupancy".
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
Complaint Item: 5 - 5. Window in master bedroom # 1 leaking due to stucco work.
Investigator’s Observation: Corrected prior to onsite inspection.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTIONS REQUIRED.
Complaint Item: 7 - 7. Concrete slab in front of front door flooding and not going away from property when it rains the water collects
Investigator’s Observation: The Workmanship Standards for Licensed
Contractors (WSLC) states that:
Water should drain. Standing water exceeding 3/32" is unacceptable. Flood, wait 30 minutes and then check for ponding.
Contractor should make necessary repairs.
ROC: Front entry area was flooded and after 30-minutes no ponding meeting or exceeding the 3-32-inch standards were observer.
NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.
All errors in original.
Investigator Corlett testified that on October 28, 2024, he received an email from Complainant stating that the stucco repairs were ongoing and that the parties were continuing to work together.
On January 27, 2025, Investigator Corlett conducted a Compliance Inspection during which he found that Complaint Item Numbers 3.3 and 6.6 had been corrected, however, Complaint Item Number 4.4 had not been corrected. Investigator Corlett noted the following:
Respondent has made repairs however there are still voids and gaps in stucco at the base of the garage door.
Stucco is also exhibiting small areas of white spots exposed. Respondent has made repairs to stucco however there are numerous “white spots” visible around the house and garage.
RESPONDENT SHOULD DETERMINE CAUSE AND CORRECT BY APPROPIATE METHODS MATCHING SURROUNDING AREAS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
Compliance Observation: Some minor “white spots” are still visible around the house and garage.
All errors in original.
Thereafter, Investigator Corlett referred the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On May 23, 2025, Investigator Corlett conducted a prehearing inspection. Investigator Corlett testified that after the issuance of the Citation, Respondent performed extensive work including repairing numerous areas of stucco and repainting the entire house. Investigator Corlett further testified that the corrective work performed by Respondent is now “well within industry standards” and that the Registrar does not have a “perfection standard.”
Complainant testified that she “feels” the work was not done properly and “feels” that elastomeric paint was not the proper product to use. Complainant testified that Respondent performed “patchwork” twenty-seven times under the elastomeric paint and that the elastomeric paint is “like a vinyl wrap to take care of the problem.”
John Chavira, Complainant’s husband, reiterated that he “feels” that the stucco repairs were not properly performed because he “did [his] own investigation and learned more about stucco” and “thinks [it] should have been done differently.”
Complainant did not provide any evidence that the corrective work performed by Respondent was improper or not within industry standards.
Tyler Angle, Respondent’s President, testified regarding the photographs taken on June 23, 2025, depicting the current condition of the stucco and paint. Mr. Angle apologized for the length of time that the repairs took. Mr. Angle explained in detail the final repairs that were performed.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 18, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 111258 was first issued on January 29, 1996, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only one open complaint, that being the instant Complaint, five (5) resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense.
“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.”
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) provides:
The holder of a license or any person named on a license pursuant to this chapter may not commit any of the following acts or omissions:
. . . .
3. Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar.
. . . .
22. Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. . . .
A.A.C. R49108(A) provides that “[a] contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.”
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The Registrar neither demands nor expects perfection from a licensee on the licensee’s first attempt at work. A licensee must be given a reasonable opportunity to remediate workmanship issues prior to the imposition of discipline against its license. In an administrative hearing, however, Respondent is responsible to establish a lack of opportunity or the preclusion from doing so.
Regarding the Registrar’s charge of poor workmanship, the credible evidence of record established that at the time of the issuance of the Citation, only one item of Complaint remained and that the parties continued to work together to allow Respondent to effectuate appropriate remedial work. The credible and probative evidence of record established that ultimately, Respondent performed all of the corrective work within industry standards, and Complainant provided no evidence to establish otherwise.
Regarding Respondent’s alleged failure to comply with the Written Directive, the Administrative Law Judge concludes based on the credible, probative, and substantial evidence presented at hearing that Respondent ultimately complied with the requirements of the Written Directive and satisfied the Registrar’s standards. Although Respondent did not comply within the timeframe provided in the Written Directive, the parties chose to work together after the deadline expired, resulting in the completion of the required corrective work.
Considering the facts that Respondent has been licensed since 1996, with no discipline against its license, and that Respondent ultimately performed all required corrective work to industry standards, are factors in mitigation. There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Respondent was unscrupulous, unqualified, or financially irresponsible. Consequently, it would not be fair or just to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
Considering the evidence presented in this matter, it is appropriate to dismiss this Complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the Registrar dismiss Complaint Number 2024-09434 against Respondent.
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, July 18, 2025.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Victoria Perdomo
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Angle Homes, Inc.
[email redacted]
Cliff Corlett
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff