ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-12296-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jennifer Srock,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Skye Builders LLC

ROC License No. 309790,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-12296-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 16, 2025 at 9:00 AM.

APPEARANCES: Jennifer Scrock (“Complainant”) appeared on her behalf. Gerardo Tapia Jr. appeared on behalf of Skye Builders LLC (“Respondent”). Gregory Kinsfather appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the Registrar’s attached agency file, and Continued Hearing Orders dated June 04, 2025, and July 25, 2025, were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website. On November 17, 2016, the Registrar issued ROC License No. 309790 Specialty Dual CR-42 Roofing contracting license to Respondent. The license has been renewed through November 30, 2026. Dulce P. Gonzalez is listed as the Qualifying Party on the license. Gerardo Tapia Jr. is also listed as a Member on the license. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 17856 N. 183rd Ave. Surprise, Arizona 85374. Respondent has an active $6,750.00 surety bond on the license issued by RLI Insurance Company, effective October 27, 2016. The license has not previously been disciplined by the Registrar, but has had two (2) prior complaints settled or otherwise resolved against it. Currently, the license has one (1) open complaint against it, which is presumed to be related to this matter.

On or about November 05, 2024, the Registrar received a lengthy narrative complaint from Complainant against ROC License No. 309790 that essentially alleged poor work of a residential roofing project. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2024-12296 and assigned to Greg Kinsfather (“Investigator Kinsfather”) for investigation.

On March 03, 2025, Investigator Kinsfather issued a Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on March 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On March 05, 2025, Investigator Kinsfather issued a Jobsite Inspection Reschedule Notification Letter to the parties, advising that his onsite inspection of the project was rescheduled for April 02, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On April 02, 2025, Investigator Kinsfather inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was present. Investigator Kinsfather also reviewed the contract-related correspondence between the parties, and took 39 photographs of the project site. Ultimately, Investigator Kinsfather derived a total of sixty-two (62) separate and distinct complaint items from Complaint No. 2024-12296, thirty-six (36) of which he substantiated based on his firsthand observations. Specifically, Investigator Kinsfather determined Respondent’s workmanship on complaint items 8, 21, 23-25, 29-38, 40-55, 57-59, and 61-62 failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum standards and required Respondent to perform corrective and/or completion work to remediate the identified deficiencies.

On April 04, 2025, Investigator Kinsfather issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent because he substantiated just over half of Complainant’s complaint allegation(s) against Respondent. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2025, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) §§ 32-1154(A) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On April 04, 2025, Investigator Kinsfather issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) for Respondent’s failure to include all nine (9) required minimum elements in his contracts, including his contract with Complainant. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On April 04, 2025, Investigator Kinsfather issued another Warning Letter to Respondent to advise that Respondent’s work on the underlying project required possession of an additional license that Respondent did not possess during the relevant time period, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16), which could result in discipline against Respondent’s license including suspension or revocation.

On April 23, 2025, Investigator Kinsfather forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Citation Recommendation.

On April 25, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a), and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until May 10, 2025, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On May 08, 2025, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer whereby Paulina G. argued that Respondent was unaware that “interior work” had not been completed in accordance with the Directive.

On May 09, 2025, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on July 01, 2025. Per the May 21, 2025, Notice of Hearing the issues to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following alleged statutory violations:

Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – A.A.C. R4-9-108(a)

Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Hearing Evidence

Complainant testified on her own behalf and called Investigator Kinsfather as a witness. Gerardo Tapia Jr. testified on behalf of Respondent. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:

Complainant owns residential property located at 11069 S. Hollinger Rd. Casa Grande, Arizona 85193.

On an unknown date, Complainant opened a claim with her homeowners’ insurance company (“Assurant”) for damage sustained to her roof on August 31, 2023.

On September 06, 2023, the parties entered into a partial roof repair contract, for an amount “TBD.” Terms included removing Complainant’s existing roofing material down to the substrate, installation and painting of new flashing, and installation of new roofing material including underlayment.

Between April 04-18, 2025, Respondent’s license was active and in good standing with the Registrar. During that time, Respondent was only lawfully permitted to address substantiated complaint items related to roofing. All items involving drywall and/or paint fell outside the scope of Respondent’s license. As such, Respondent was only lawfully permitted to subcontract corrective work in adherence with the Directive that only related to roofing.

On April 21, 2025, Complainant confirmed with Investigator Kinsfather that Respondent had successfully and completely addressed substantiated complaint item 8 on April 17, 2025, regarding debris removal. No other substantiated complaint items were addressed by Respondent during the Directive’s compliance period.

On April 23, 2025, Mr. Tapia verified with Investigator Kinsfather that substantiated complaint item 8 was the only item addressed by Respondent.

At no point in time did Respondent allege a denial of access to the project site during the Directive’s compliance period, or request extensions thereof. The parties did not enter into a financial settlement agreement regarding outstanding substantiated complaint items 21, 23-25, 29-38, 40-55, 57-59, and 61-62.

Additional Evidence

Complainant testified that she entered into the underlying construction contract with Respondent under the belief that Respondent was licensed as a General Contractor. Although she relied on Respondent’s construction expertise, she became concerned once she learned that Respondent’s license was limited in scope. Complainant asked Respondent for an itemized list of repair items with corresponding charges, but it was never provided.

On an unknown date, Assurant issued a remediation check for Complainant’s roof in both Complainant’s and Respondent’s names. Complainant declined when Respondent requested she sign the entire check over and/or cash it and tender all of the funds. Consequently, the check was neither deposited nor cashed, and Respondent was never paid for any work performed.

Closing Arguments

In closing, Respondent argued that it intended to provide Complainant with good customer service and quality workmanship.

In closing, Complainant argued that the Registrar should revoke ROC License No. 309790 due to the egregiousness of Respondent’s conduct.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he 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.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.”

Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a) requires that “[a] contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] holder of a license may not fail to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. The Registrar has the authority to issue license discipline under this provision, including summary suspension, revocation, or imposing a civil penalty or recovery fund award.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E) holds, in pertinent parts, that the ROC may “[i]mpose a civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars on a contractor for each violation. The failure by the licensee to pay any civil penalty imposed results in the automatic revocation of the license thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty. It also holds that no future license may be issued to an entity consisting of a person who is associated with the contractor, unless payment of any outstanding civil penalty is tendered.”

Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. In interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the language of the statute and, if it is unclear, turn to other factors, including ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.”

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”

The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.

The material facts in the case at bar are clear.

It is clear from the record that the parties had a roof remediation contract that was to be paid by Assurant, but neither an insurance adjuster nor Respondent provided Complainant with a construction estimate that included an approximate cost of repairs. It is also clear that much of the work Respondent performed on the project failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards. It is further clear that Respondent did not comply with the Registrar’s Directive, or request an extension thereof.

Therefore, the only issue in dispute is whether Respondent raised a sufficient justification or excuse for failing to adhere to the Registrar’s Directive and remediate Complainant’s project. This is an affirmative defense that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, Respondent did not sustain its burden. There is no evidence in the record that excuses or otherwise justifies Respondent’s inaction and/or lack of performance/competence. The evidentiary record in this matter reflects that Respondent’s performance on the underlying project failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards, and that Respondent failed to substantively address thirty-five (35) substantiated complaint items prior to the expiration of the Directive’s compliance period, without justification or excuse. A number of substantiated complaint items fell within the scope of Respondent’s construction license and could have been addressed. Remaining substantiated complaint items regarding drywall and paint, which fell outside the scope of Respondent’s construction license, could have been addressed via settlement. It is clear from the record that Respondent had nominal communication with the Registrar during the entire pendency of Complaint No. 2024-12296, which is a factor in aggravation. However, because Respondent did participate in these proceedings, it would tend to illustrate its willingness and ability to submit to regulation by the Registrar.

Notably, there is no evidence in the record to reasonably indicate that Respondent ever provided the Registrar with an update construction contract template that met the statutory requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(12); 32-1158(A).

Because Complainant has established Respondent’s violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a), and 32-1154(A)(22), Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s contractor’s license.

Complainant may petition the Registrar’s Recovery Fund for financial recompense in this matter.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that that on the effective date of the Final Order in this matter, Respondent Skye Builders LLC, ROC License No. 309790, shall be suspended for fourteen (14) business days based on its violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and 32-1154(A)(22).

It is further recommended that Respondent submit a construction contract template to the Registrar that complies with requirements set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158 within five (5) days of the effective date of the Final Order in this matter.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum total of $500.00 (five hundred fifty dollars) in certified funds 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 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.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 29, 2025.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

c/o Legal Department

Registrar of Contractors

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Jennifer Srock, Complainant

11069 S. Hollinger Rd.

Casa Grande, AZ 85193

[email redacted]

Skye Builders LLC

c/o Gerardo Tapia Jr., Agent

17856 N. 183rd Ave.

Surprise, AZ 85374

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff