ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-11098-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Gregory Beers,

COMPLAINANT

The Villalpando Corporation, Inc

DBA: Villalpando Custom Homes Builders,

License No. ROC 195458,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-11098-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 25, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Gregory Beers appeared via Google Meet. Cruz Villalpando appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent The Villalpando Corporation Inc. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Patricia Schuette appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Villalpando Corporation Inc. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 195458 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about January 3, 2023, the parties entered into a construction contract for a new home located in Queen Creek, Arizona.

On or about October 1, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Patricia Schuette. The jobsite inspection was performed on November 5, 2024.

Investigator Schuette then issued a Written Directive on or about December 9, 2024, which provided in pertinent part 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 December 26, 2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 - Failure to perform the Work in accordance with the

Contractor's published schedule to avoid delays.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The contract referred to schedule and draws on an exhibit but was never provided. This is in violation of . Complainant has chosen to move forward with another GC after punch list and inspection corrections have been done.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1158 (A) (4) The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract.

Complaint Item: 4 - Draw taken for the exterior windows and doors was greater than the amount actually paid to the supplier

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Documentation provided by the complainant showing bank draws and invoices from window and door supplier do not match. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (8) Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated by the contract, or in any modification of the contract.

Complaint Item: 6 - Multiple work stoppages have occurred causing delays to the build.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Complainant provided documentation/calendar of days worked. After punch list items have been corrected along with any corrections required by Building Official, Complainant is moving forward with another GC. Respondent to correct any punch list items by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 8 - Failure to correct poor workmanship in a timely manner.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. A BCP inspection with corrective items was done on September 17, 2024 and all of the same punch list items remain to be corrected. Punch list items that required correction including but not limited to; rough openings of windows requiring grinding or shaving of excess concrete to accommodate window, gaps in foam block insulation as well as areas that are blown out, possible incorrect rough opening to front door, ledge/lip in concrete in garage in location where ADA access was shown on plan, and rough opening bowed and not plumb.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 12 - Daily site clean-up not performed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. A BCP inspection was done on September 17, 2024 and there are still areas of scrap lumber, concrete slag, and protruding rebar by front door patio. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

...

On January 13, 2025, Investigator Schuette conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection and noted the following:

Compliance Jobsite General Notes: Both parties were present. Postal notice of inspection to the Respondent was returned as undeliverable. Complainant and Respondent agreed to try to work together to get pending items corrected after the compliance inspection. Call with Complainant on 1/28/25 stated that only the concrete was removed from the fixed window.

Compliance Findings:

Complaint Item: 3 - Failure to perform the Work in accordance with the Contractor's published schedule to avoid delays.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. The contract referred to schedule and draws on an exhibit but was never provided. Complainant has chosen to move forward with another GC after punch list and inspection corrections have been done.

Compliance Observation: No corrective action has been made.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1158 (A) (4) The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 4 - Draw taken for the exterior windows and doors was greater than the amount actually paid to the supplier

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. Documentation provided by the complainant showing bank draws and invoices from window and door supplier do not match. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Original rule does not apply to this complaint item.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 6 - Multiple work stoppages have occurred causing delays to the build.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. Complainant provided documentation/calendar of days worked. After punch list items have been corrected along with any corrections required by Building Official, Complainant is moving forward with another GC. Respondent to correct any punch list items by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Punch list items have not all been corrected. There was one fixed window opening that still required clean up/removal of excess concrete as well as a couple of door way openings that were not per plan dimensions. Areas of interlocking insulation that buckled were mostly shaven down but not sealed properly afterwards at butt joints.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 8 - Failure to correct poor workmanship in a timely manner.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. A BCP inspection with corrective items was done on September 17, 2024 and all of the same punch list items remain to be corrected. Punch list items that required correction including but not limited to; rough openings of windows requiring grinding or shaving of excess concrete to accommodate window, gaps in foam block insulation as well as areas that are blown out, possible incorrect rough opening to front door, ledge/lip in concrete in garage in location where ADA access was shown on plan, and rough opening bowed and not plumb.

Compliance Observation: There was one fixed window opening that still required clean up/removal of excess concrete as well as a couple of door way openings that were not per plan dimensions. Areas of interlocking insulation that buckled were mostly shaven down but not sealed properly afterwards at butt joints.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 12 - Daily site clean-up not performed

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. A BCP inspection was done on September 17, 2024 and there are still areas of scrap lumber, concrete slag, and protruding rebar by front door patio. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Corrected

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

. . .

On February 20, 2025, 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); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about March 10, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about March 14, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on April 28, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Schuette testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Schuette testified that Respondent failed to provide a copy of the schedule and draw exhibit referenced in the contract, and failed to fully complete the Written Directive.

Complainant’s testimony echoed Investigator Schuette’s as to the status of the project. Complainant also testified that while there were times corrected overtime, they were not done well.

Mr. Villalpando testified the parties had gone through everything and all items were address and were all corrected, as he tried to comply the best he could. Further, Mr. Villalpando testified that he had complied with the Directive requirement of providing an updated contract with the Registrar.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 9, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 195458 was first issued on May 4, 2004, and reflected that there were a total of four open cases, one of which was the present case; two disciplined cases and one “resolved/settled” case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the work performed was not completed in a workmanlike manner.

The preponderance of the evidence established that the contracts were in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, as it did not contain the estimated date of completion, and the dollar amount of the progress payments.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 195458 for a period of three days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to provide the Registrar with a sample contract which complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158. It is recommended that Respondent’s license remain suspended until it complies with the same.

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, May 9, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Gregory Beers

[email redacted]

The Villalpando Corporation, Inc

DBA: Villalpando Custom Homes Builders

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff