ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-10686-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

All Amps Electric LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

American Made Remodeling LLC

License No. ROC 300087,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-10686-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 21, 2025.

APPEARANCES:

For Complainant: Mark Canchola and Shelle Canchola.

For Respondent: Sydian Mason and Brandon Shay.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits. Respondent’s Exhibits.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

American Made Remodeling LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License number 300087 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 8, 2015.

On or about May 2, 2024, All Amps Electric LLC (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for electrical work. The contract reflected the most basic terms of the agreement, and it did not include agreement about the right to cure deficiencies, the requirement to be notified thereof, or other issues.

On or about September 16, 2024, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay $3,675.00.

On or about September 23, 2024, the Registrar notified Respondent that it had received a complaint and the Complainant could raise issues and defenses by September 30, 2024.

On November 7, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation, alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154 (A)(10). Respondent timely submitted an Answer on November 19, 2024, stating that Complainant did not complete the work that the parties agreed to; Respondent asked for an itemized list of work that Complainant did complete, but Complainant refused to provide detailed information about what work was completed.

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative hearing. The Notice of Hearing was issued on December 6, 2024, setting the hearing for January 14, 2025. The hearing was rescheduled for February 21, 2025, and the hearing was held on that date.

At hearing, Complainant presented the testimony of Mark Canchola and Shelle Canchola. Respondent presented the testimony of Sydian Mason and Brandon Shay.

Ms. Canchola testified that Complainant finished work on the project on May 20, 2024, and after completing the work Complainant made multiple efforts to reach Respondent, but Respondent was non-communicative, eventually leading to the complaint.

Mr. Canchola testified that he walked through the job site with Mr. Shay prior to offering his bid. He testified that he completed all of the work that they agreed to. He testified that he did not do a post-work walk through with general contractors; normally, the general contractor would review the work completed and contact Complainant about any deficiencies. He testified that Respondent never contacted Complainant about work not being finished, so he assumed the work was fine. He denied that Respondents ever requested a walk through of the home to review the work that was completed.

Complainants offered to unsworn statements from two individuals, Matthew Jazensky and Elijah Canchola, both of which state that they worked at the project site on May 20, 2024.

Ms. Mason testified that Complainant did not complete item six, nor did Complainant complete other items such as rewiring and moving electrical components. She presented pictures from May 23, 2024, showing some of the work was not completed. Ms. Mason stated that she later requested an itemized bill to determine what Complainants did on May 20, 2024, but Complainants did not provide that information, simply stating all work was completed. She also requested that Complainant attend a walk through to review the work, and Complainant refused.

Mr. Shay testified that Complainants did not finish the work the parties had agreed to. He explained how the different photographs, taken on May 23, 2024, and provided by Respondent demonstrated that Complainant had not completed the work.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bore the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result and “be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”

Non-payment complaints, and resulting hearings, are disciplinary in nature. If a Complainant does not prevail in the disciplinary hearing, it does not necessarily mean that they are without recourse for recovering money owed to them.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Complainant did some work at the project. However, the preponderance of the evidence also established that Complainant did not complete the entire job pursuant to the agreement.

The preponderance of the evidence does not support a specific amount being “due” under the contract.

Upon review of the evidence submitted this case, Complainant failed to establish what amount of money was “due” for materials or services rendered to Respondent in connection with Respondent’s operations as a licensed contractor.

Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence did not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged, and the Administrative Law Judge did not find grounds to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, Complainant’s complaint be closed.

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, March 13, 2025.

/s/ Samuel Fox

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

All Amps Electric LLC

[email redacted]

American Made Remodeling LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff