ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-11409-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Paradise Windows LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

CNC Contracting LLC

License No. ROC 315455, 332641

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-11409-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 21, 2025

APPEARANCES: Jon Solsvik appeared on behalf of Complainant Paradise Windows LLC. Chris Foster appeared on behalf of Respondent CNC Contracting LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits A-F were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On January 21, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on February 21, 2025at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was being conducted on the charges made in the complaint and citation that were served on Respondent CNC Contracting LLC on November 25, 2024. A copy of the Notice of Hearing, as well as an Order containing the Google Meet information was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent’s addresses of record.

Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent holds License No. 315455 issued by ROC. Christina Marie Foster is Respondent’s qualifying party and a member in the corporation.

Complainant is Paradise Windows LLC.

Complainant installed windows and on several projects for which Respondent was the general contractor.

On October 9, 2024, Complainant filed with ROC a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent owed Complainant $102,055.28.

The hearing was convened on February 21, 2025. Jon Solsvik, Kimberly Gonzales, Ingrid Scharff, and Chris Foster.

Mr. Solsvik testified that there were six invoices which remained unpaid, namely the following:

Invoice 4645 in the amount of $21,546.29.

Invoice 4646 in the amount of $20,205.34

Invoice 4752 in the amount of $435.00.

Invoice 4833 in the amount of $4,401.00.

Invoice 4724 in the amount of $25,408.50.

Invoice 4723 in the amount of $30,068.15.

Mr. Solsvik testified that for the “Buckskin” invoices (4645, 4646, 4752, and 4833) his contract was with a different general contractor, but Respondent took over the job, and promised to pay the invoices.

Mr. Solsvik also testified that Respondent was fully paid on invoice 4724, and that Respondent had not paid.

Finally, as to invoice 4723, Mr. Solsvik testified that the remaining amount was the second half of the contract, and acknowledged that there was some glass and problems with one door which would cost around a total of $800.00.

Mr. Foster testified that as to the “Buckskin” invoices, he did not agree to assume the contract and only agreed to pay for a garage door opener associated with the project.

In addition, Mr. Foster testified that as to invoice 4723, the work was in complete and there were many issues with the installed items such as the trim not matching the blueprint specification for the project.

Finally, as to invoice 4724, Mr. Foster acknowledged that he was paid on this project and was simply waiting for the outcome of this case to pay.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The 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.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").

“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

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).

Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750.00 for materials purchased and work performed in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. From the credible evidence provided, the tribunal declines, at least in this forum, to recommend that Respondent pay for any of the “Buckskin” invoices, as there is a genuine dispute over whether the contract was assumed or not, which would be better handled in a different forum.

As to invoice 4724 in the amount of $25,408.50, the tribunal finds that this amount was due, and Respondent failed to pay.

As to invoice 4723, Complainant acknowledged some errors with the installation, (at the cost of $800.00) but it performed all of the work pursuant to the contract.

Therefore, the tribunal finds that the amount due, at least in this matter, is $54,676.65.

Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $54,676.65.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS RECOMMENDED that CNC Contracting LLC’s license number 315455 be suspended until the Registrar receives proof that it has paid to Paradise Windows LLC $54,676.65.

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 7, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Paradise Windows LLC

[email redacted]

CNC Contracting LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff