ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-12459-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Brooke Goodland,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Macy’s Well and Pump LLC

License No. ROC 333893,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-12459-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 31, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Brooke Goodland appeared on her own behalf. Daniel Macy appeared on behalf of Respondent, Macy’s Well and Pump LLC. Mike Wiskow appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”); Complainant Exhibits 1 through 46.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Macy’s Well and Pump LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 333893 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about January 25, 2024, Brooke Goodland (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, drilling a well on her residential property, a five acre parcel, in Whitman, Arizona. The total contracted amount for the project was $38,862.92 and Complainant paid out $19,431.46.

The project required permits and those were obtained in April 2024. The estimated time of completion was two to three weeks after permit issuance. Complainant rented a property in Glendale, Arizona while the Whitman parcel was being prepared to lay electrical and water with plans to fully move onto her property around October 2024.

After the receipt of the permits, no work was performed on the well.

On or about November 8, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mike Wiskow. After a jobsite inspection on December 30, 2024, Investigator Wiskow 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 Tuesday, January 14, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 – Work not completed. Contractor has never been to site/began work. Gave multiple dates of completion, none were not met.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed...Well has not been Started Contractor should finish well project per contract.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, no additional work was performed on the well. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Wiskow was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

On or about January 16, 2025, Investigator Wiskow wrote in his Compliance Notes the following:

Compliance Jobsite General Notes: No CJSI Conducted

Compliance Findings: After conversations with both parties on 1/15/25, it has been found that the well has not been started. The Complainant would like to have the complaint forwarded to the legal department in order to keep the process moving. The Respondent stated he would be finishing his current well and moving to the Complainant’s property soon.

Notification was verbally given to the Respondent that the Complainant would still like the Respondent to complete the written directive even though the complaint has been forwarded to the legal department and directive period has expired. The complaint can still be closed if the directive is completed.

On January 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Wiskow testified that at the jobsite inspection he witnessed that no work had been performed at the jobsite, except the issuance of permits. In addition, Investigator Wiskow testified that he thought Respondent’s contract was missing four elements per Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158. However, Investigator Wiskow clarified that after further review, only one element was missing from the contract, the estimated date of completion was present but not filled out.

Complainant testified that an entire year went by before any physical work was performed on the well. Work finally began on the well on January 28, 2025, however, by the time of the hearing, there was still no working well. Complainant expressed that she had electrical power and a manufactured home on the property and the only thing that held her up is that she had no water. As such, Complainant continued to pay rent elsewhere to live.

Daniel Macy, Respondent Qualifying Partner, testified that the delays stemmed from multiple issues which began with his knee injury that led to sepsis. Due to Mr. Macy’s health issues, equipment failures, and other jobs that became delayed which created a backlog, he lost a few employees. Finally, Respondent began work on January 28, 2025, and discovered a lot of gravel and sand at the site of the future well which required extra equipment so they could drill in mud. Respondent needed to drill 500 feet down and once they drilled to 462 feet, they experienced more equipment failure. At the time of hearing, Mr. Macy stated that the well was 55% done.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 31, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 333893 was first issued on January 30, 2025, and is Active.

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

In this case, the evidence established that Respondent submitted a bid for Complainant’s project and did not perform the work in the bid. Although Respondent began work on January 28, 2025, that was a full year after the contract was signed. Furthermore, no work had been performed prior to the Written Directive deadline. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).

In addition, Charge 2 in the Citation regarding the failure to meet the elements of a contract per Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158, the evidence did not establish that Respondent failed to meet this criteria. In fact, Respondent’s contract does meet all of the required elements and more.

Lastly, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued and prior to the Directive deadline. 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 333893 for a period of one day.

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, April 21, 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]

Macy's Well and Pump LLC

24390 E Peace Ln

Florence, AZ 85132

[email redacted]

Mike Wiskow

[email redacted]

Brooke Goodland

19005 S 196th Way

Queen Creek, AZ 85142

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff