ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-09894-CPA-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-02-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Arizona Registrar of Contractors

COMPLAINANT,

Mark Anthony Mastropole

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-09894-CPA-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 10, 2025

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover, III appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, (hereinafter “Complainant” or “Registrar”). Mark Anthony Mastropole, (hereinafter “Respondent” or “Mark Anthony Mastopole”), appeared on behalf of himself.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Registrar’s Exhibits 1 through Exhibit 9.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On or about June 25, 2024, Respondent presented a contract to Sue Browning, wherein Respondent offered to perform construction work at 1622 S. San Luis Green Valley AZ 85614, for the amount of $7,460.00. Ms. Browning signed the contract. The contract did not include the language, “not a licensed contractor.”

Ms. Browning paid Respondent an amount that exceeded $1,000 for the construction.

Steve Hammons is an investigator for the Registrar. Investigator Hammons investigates unlicensed individuals acting in the capacity of an investigator. Investigator Hammons has 23 years of experience working in law enforcement.

On August 27, 2024, Investigator Hammons received a call from an individual asking to remain anonymous. The caller advised that Respondent, an unlicensed individual, had applied for and was issued a building permit in Pima County, Arizona.

Investigator Hammons searched the Registrar’s database and found that Respondent did not have an active, pending or revoked contractor license. Investigator Hammons also found:

Respondent plead guilty to Contracting Without a License in two prior cases: case number 2022-02874 and case number 2022-02874.

Mark Antony Mastropole DBA: Masters Building and Remodeling is listed as the “Statutory Agent” as well as the “Manager” for Masters Building and Remodeling LLC # L21207823.

Respondent applied for a Building Permit to build a “Back Porch” on August 8, 2024.

5. Investigator Hammons sent an email to the Pima County Building Official and requested a search for Building Permits pulled by Respondent. On August 28, 2024, Investigator Hammons received a response from the Pima County Building Official verifying that Respondent applied for and was issued Building Permit # P24BP06898 for jobsite address 1622 S. San Luis Green Valley AZ 85614.

6. Investigator Hammons also learned that Respondent has submitted building plans with the permit. Investigator Hammons obtained a copy of the building plans that Respondent submitted to the Pima County Building Official.

7. Investigator Hammons met with Ms. Browning during his investigation.

Ms. Browning identified Respondent as the person that she hired to perform construction at her home in a photograph lineup in case 2022-02874.

8. On September 19, 2024, Investigator Hammons served Respondent with a Cease and Desist Order and Civil Citation for violating the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes (hereinafter “A.R.S.”) § 32-1151. A civil penalty in the amount of $2,500.00 was assessed for one count of contracting without a license.

9. Respondent requested a hearing regarding the Cease and Desist Order and Civil Citation.

10. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

11. On October 31, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on `

Appealable Agency Action setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on December 6, 2024, at the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Notice of Hearing provided that the issue set for determination was, “As stated in the Citation issued to Respondent, the Registrar found that Respondent engaged in an act of contracting that required Respondent to be licensed. The Registrar issued the Citation, including assessment of a civil penalty, under A.R.S. § 32-1166.01(C).”

12. The matter was continued to February 10, 2025.

13. At the hearing on February 10, 2025, Respondent testified on behalf of

himself. Investigator Hammons testified consistently with his Investigation Report.

14. Respondent expressed that he did not understand why the Pima County Building Official issued gave him a permit if the application was illegal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s violation of A.R.S. § 32-1151 by a preponderance of the evidence.

2. Arizona contracting law prohibits a person from acting as a contractor without a license. The law allows an exemption from licensure, with certain limitations, for a “handyman.” An unlicensed handyman can perform construction work, with certain exclusions, such as that the work does not require a permit, as long as the aggregate price for the job, including labor and materials, does not exceed $1,000.00. The Registrar can order a person who performs contracting without a license and who is not exempt from licensure to cease and desist such activity and may impose a civil penalty of between $200.00 and $2,500.00 for each violation, but not more than $2,500.00 per day.

3. A.R.S. § 32-1151 provides as follows:

It is unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization, or a combination of any of them, to engage in the business of, submit a bid or respond to a request for qualification or a request for proposals for construction services as, act or offer to act in the capacity of or purport to have the capacity of a contractor without having a contractor's license in good standing in the name of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization as provided in this chapter, unless the person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization is exempt as provided in this chapter. Evidence of securing a permit from a governmental agency or the employment of a person on a construction project shall be accepted in any court as prima facie evidence of existence of a contract.

4. Upon consideration review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent engaged in contracting without a license.

5. A.R.S. § 32-1166(A) authorizes the Registrar to assess “a civil penalty in an amount of at least two hundred dollars for each violation but not more than two thousand five hundred dollars for the multiple violations committed on the same day.” With respect to the appropriate amount of the civil penalty for Respondent’s violation of A.R.S. § 32-1151, A.R.S. § 32-1166.01(G) allows the Registrar to “adopt rules covering the assessment of a civil penalty that give due consideration to the gravity of the violation and any history of previous violations.” Under A.R.S. § 32-1166.01(G), the Registrar adopted A.A.C. R4-9-131. Evidence received in this matter supports the imposition of a $2,500.00 penalty pursuant to A.A.C. R4-9-131(10).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar affirm the finding that Mark Anthony Mastropole violated A.R.S. § 32-1151 and affirm the decision to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $2,500.00 to be paid in certified funds to the Registrar on or before the effective date of the Registrar’s final Order in this matter.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, February 28, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

By: OAH Staff