ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-09693-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Sandra Jackson,

COMPLAINANT

v.

FIRST CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT LLC

License No. ROC 338200,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-09693-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

___________________________________________________________________

HEARING: April 29, 2025, and October 22, 2025.

APPEARANCES: Sandra Jackson appeared on her own behalf. Michael Manone, Qualifying Party, appeared representing Respondent at the April 29, 2025 hearing session; however, he failed to appear for the October 22, 2025 further hearing session. Investigator Jim Dimond appeared on behalf of the ROC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibits 1 through 11, plus four supplemental documents and additional jpeg documents. _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

First Capital Development LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 338200, a KB-1 Dual Building, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in May 2022.

In June 2023, Sandra Jackson (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to build a home and 3-car garage in Kirkland, Arizona, at the contracted price of $392,738.37.

On August 22, 2024, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and construction delays causing upcoming escrow issues. The Complaint indicated that work began on December 1, 2023, and stopped on August 14, 2024. The Complainant further indicated that $198,485.16 had been paid to Respondent.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Jim Dimond, who scheduled a jobsite inspection for the project.

At a scheduled September 24, 2024 jobsite inspection, no person from Respondent arrived to participate in the jobsite inspection.

On September 24, 2024 Investigator Dimond reviewed the Complainant with Complainant and took multiple photographs to document the unfinished state of the project.

On September 25, 2024, Investigator Dimond issued a Written Directive to Respondent, which 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 Saturday, October 26, 2024.

..................

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 Build duration exceeding contract as a result of abandonment.

Investigator’s Observation: The roof is shingled and the Tyvek wrap is installed. Most of the framing is done and the electrical and plumbing rough in was recently completed,

Most of the framing appears done. Framing passed inspection on 06/07/2024.

Concrete patios/porches are not installed.

Several doors are not installed.

In the 2 bathrooms, 1 window in each, need replaced as they are not tempered.

Gas installation needs to be certified in order for the county to accept the install.

It is reported that months go by in between work being done.

The home was reportedly to be completed in late June and now is slated for completion in November.

At the current stage of construction, that doesn't appear likely unless work days substantially increase. Unforeseen conditions are not uncommon in the construction industry. However, the project's timeline has exceeded what is generally acceptable by professional industry standards. The respondent must complete the work promptly as outlined in the contract.

Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

The respondent is to complete the home in accordance with the contract between the parties.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(b) Building Codes

On February 20, 2025, Complainant notified Investigator Dimond regarding work that had progressed and work that remained to be completed.

Thereafter, Investigator Dimond forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

On February 24, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

A pre-hearing inspection was not conducted.

At the April 29, 2025 hearing, Investigator Dimond testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes and the Written Directive. The photographs taken at the Jobsite Inspection depicted deficiencies in Respondent’s work at the time of the jobsite inspection. Investigator Dimond testified with regard to much of the work that was not complete on the project.

At the April 29, 2025 hearing, the parties had informal discussion and determined to continue to work for 6 more weeks toward completion of the home project. The parties requested the matter be set for status updates with Complainant providing updates on the progress to the Tribunal and requesting additional time, if needed.

On September 25, 2025, Complainant notified the Tribunal that the project remained incomplete and requested that the matter be reset for hearing.

By ORDER dated September 29, 2025, the matter was reset for further hearing to convene at 1:00 p.m. on October 22, 2025 through a virtual online link.

At the time set for further hearing, Respondent failed to appear.

At the further hearing, Complainant testified that very little had been done recently and that multiple items remained to be completed.

Complainant indicated there had been no recent contact from Chris Crayne as to workers or work scheduled.

Two of the specific items that were not yet completed were the HVAC installation and the concrete pour for pavement and driveway.

Complainant testified: that, as of October 2025, the construction loan had paid out $318,561.76 on the project; the Bank had informed her that there was not more money in the construction loan for “concrete;” and, that only $16,438.24 was left in the construction loan.

Complainant provided copies of Respondent’s draws on the project, which demonstrated that Respondent had continued to make draws: for 50% of the appliance portion while only the cooktop had been installed; 100% of the concrete portion while only the pad under the home had been done; 95% of the electrical portion had already been drawn; and, 90% of the plumbing portion had already been drawn.

Since the date of the October 22, 2025, Complainant has not notified the Tribunal that the parties were able to informally resolve the matter.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC License record on November 17, 2025. Respondent’s License record also reflects that this Complaint is one of two open ROC complaints.

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 preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

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).

Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards.

The Directive mandated correction of the Directive items #1 and #3. Although an appropriate period of time was given, Respondent did not perform any corrective work to complete the Directive items.

The evidence established that Respondent’s work on this project was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence further established that Respondent failed to complete the directed corrective work during the period of the Written Directive and its multiple extensions. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar, without valid justification, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Additionally, Complainant credibly demonstrated that Respondent failed to complete work, under a good faith verbal agreement with the Complainant, and continued to take draws on the project for work not completed. Finally, Complainant documented in her supplemental exhibits that some of the draws taken by Respondent were for specific portions of the project that remained incomplete to the date of the October 2025 hearing.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License Number 338200.

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 17, 2025.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Jim Dimond

[email redacted]

Sandra Jackson

[email redacted]

First Capital Development LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff