ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-11991-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Grace Hursey,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

A & E Construction Building & Renovations LLC

License No. ROC 350721,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-11991-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 2, 2025 at 9:00am

APPEARANCES: Complainant Grace Hursey on her own behalf with witnesses Ro Ferranda and Alex Chavez. Aricelia Gualajara on behalf of Respondent, A & E Construction Building & Renovations, LLC. Investigator Greg Kinsfather on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibits A and B.

FINDINGS OF FACT

A & E Construction Building & Renovations, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 350721 issued on March 5, 2024, by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Respondent’s license consisted of a KB-1 Dual Building Contractor classification and began with a different Qualifying Party (“QP”) when it was first issued. Respondent went through a change of QP process with the Registrar. Due to QP issues, Respondent’s license was suspended from about November 1, 2024 through June 11, 2025. On or about June 11, 2025, the license was reactivated with all paperwork processed and the new QP settled.

On or about October 12, 2024, Grace Hursey (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, new decking at Complainant’s residential home located in Maricopa, Arizona. The contract total and amount paid was $1,510.00 which included $540.00 for “Installation of Apache Brown 1 [inch] Decorative Rock,” and $970.00 for “Application of Patio Cool Deck Paint in additional patio area. Per client choice Pearl Gray from Sherwin Williams.”

The project was completed in one day on October 12, 2024. Later that evening, Complainant began to see issues with the new decking and asked Respondent to come back to the property and inspect the work. On October 14, 2024, Respondent came back to the property and performed a few repairs.

On or about October 27, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Greg Kinsfather. Investigator Kinsfather conducted a jobsite inspection on March 14, 2025, after numerous rescheduled dates. Both parties were present at the jobsite inspection.

On May 2, 2025, Investigator Kinsfather issued a Written Directive to Respondent that 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 Friday, May 16, 2025.

. . . .

RESTRICTIONS

If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 – Paint used instead of cool decking that I was billed for Paint is chipping, flaking, scratched days later

Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item is confirmed. The complainant showed me multiple areas throughout the painted concrete in her back yard with significant flaking and chipping, exposing large areas of unfinished concrete. The Respondent did confirm that cool decking was not used as the color the complainant had chosen was not available, though did not provide evidence that the complainant approved the change to paint. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondent is not appropriately licensed to do this work, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Following the issuance of the Written Directive and after the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Kinsfather was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

The Investigator’s Compliance Notes stated “Both parties confirmed that no work was completed on this directive, as such no in person compliance inspection was conducted.”

On June 20, 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).

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Kinsfather testified that Respondent had issues with its license and for a period it was in an inactive status. Investigator Kinsfather testified that during the period of license inactivity, Respondent was not able to perform corrective work. Investigator Kinsfather stated that there was no official extension given to Respondent but a longer period of time passed between the Complaint and the Citation.

Investigator Kinsfather further testified that per the contract and communications with Respondent, Complainant believed she was getting a Cool Deck product not a paint.

Aricelia Gualajara, co-owner, testified on behalf of Respondent. Ms. Gualajara stated that Respondent’s license was inactive from November 1, 2024 until June 11, 2025, and could not perform corrective work during the inactive status. Ms. Gualajara testified that repairs were made on October 14, 2024, which included scraping and repainting areas that appeared to peel. Ms. Gualajara testified that she advised Complainant that “Cool Deck” was a good option for the walkway and patio pad. Ms. Gualajara stated that she advised Complainant to visit her contact at Sherwin Williams and pick out the color. Ms. Gualajara testified that the color that Complainant picked out was a paint and not Cool Deck and she should have edited that on the contract. Ms. Gualajara further testified that the paint was used and applied per its specifications that included a (1) power wash, (2) let the concrete dry, and (3) applying the paint coating using a special roller in two layers. Ms. Gualajara testified that Respondent used that type of outdoor paint once before and experienced no issues.

Complainant testified that per the contract and communications with Ms. Gualajara, the expectation was Cool Deck should have been used and not an outdoor paint. Complainant testified that when she spoke with the Sherwin Williams contact, she was informed that any paint color can be used in the Cool Deck product. Complainant testified that the day after the installation, she saw chunks of paint peeling and coming up. Complainant testified that her family and dogs did not step on the paint product, although, they never received any after care instructions from Respondent.

Complainant received an estimate from Alex Chavez with Galaxy Concrete Coating on October 23, 2024 for $11,749.00 for Cool Deck. Mr. Chavez inspected Respondent’s work and testified that he witnessed failing throughout the entire area in multiple places and did not believe that the product specifications were followed, hence, the calculated amount of the estimate and the proper Cook Deck product used.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 2, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 350721 and is Active, no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

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 means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

Regardless of whether the product that was installed was Cool Deck or an outdoor paint, the evidence clearly established that Respondent’s work 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).

Due to the inactive status of Respondent’s license, the evidence established that Respondent did not 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 350721 for a period of two days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $150.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, September 22, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

A & E Construction Building & Renovations LLC

50522 W Esch Trail

Maricopa, AZ 85139

[email redacted]

Greg Kinsfather

[email redacted]

Grace Hursey

44038 W Mccord Dr.

Maricopa, AZ 85138

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff