ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-12604-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-07
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Ronald Herbert Hull,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Accurate Paving LLC,
License No. ROC 347509,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-12604-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 16, 2025
APPEARANCES: Ronald Herbert Hull appeared on his own behalf. Jack Harrison, Owner, appeared representing Respondent. Investigator Gregory Johndrow appeared on behalf of the ROC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Packet; Complainant Exhibits 1 through 11.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Accurate Paving LLC (Respondent), is the holder of License No. 347509, an A-14 Asphalt Paving license, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) in September 2023.
On November 12, 2024, Respondent performed paving work for Ronald Herbert Hull (Complainant). The project consisted of chip seal paving of a lengthy and slopping driveway at Respondent’s home. The project came about after Respondent had finished another job in the area and, with extra material in its trucks/equipment, inquired at Complainant’s home on West Old Ajo Way in Tucson about possibly doing chip-seal paving of Complainant’s driveway. The parties did not have a written contract and, further, had not agreed on a price.
The day after the work Respondent emailed an invoice to Complainant for $22,800.00.
Complainant has not paid any money to Respondent.
On November 13, 2024, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) from Complainant against Respondent alleging poor work and pricing issues.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator (Inv.) Gregory Johndrow.
Inv. Johndrow conducted a Jobsite Inspection on February 12, 2025. Respondent did not appear for the inspection. At the inspection, Inv. Johndrow took 14 photographs and documented the state of the chip seal project.
On February 21, 2025, Inv. Johndrow issued a Directive requiring that Respondent perform corrective work and notify the Investigator no later than March 10, 2025.
The Directive indicated the following observed items:
Complaint Item 1: “Chip and Seal driveway was not completed as stated by contractor and has very poor workmanship”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The surface was not smoothed. The emulsion was not applied uniformly over the surface area and does not cover the entire drive side to side. The aggregate was not pressed into the emulsion throughout, this has left an uneven finished surface. The top section of the drive was not completed.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 2: “A price was never given for the job as requested prior to work & aggressively tried to collect 45K without an invoice”
Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue.
Governing Rule: N/A
Complaint Item 3: “Scope of work started and stopped in the middle of driveway with no prep work being completed”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. This complaint item encompasses the observations observed in complaint item 1.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 4: “Scope of the amount of materials stated changed 3 times prior to our concerns on his footages”
Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue.
Governing Rule: N/A
Complaint Item 5: “Came unsolicited to our home offering a "GOOD" deal on extra materials from nearby job just completed”
Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
Governing Rule: N/A
Complaint Item 6: “There was no contract approved by us & no agreed price, yet they began work that was not completed as they stated”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The respondent did not provide a written contract prior to the work performed.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) Minimum Elements of a Contract.
Complaint Item 7: “Told the road had to cure, yet they drove up & down on road several times attempting to collect 45K”
Investigator’s Observations: This is a statement by the complainant.
Governing Rule: N/A
Complaint Item 8: “They began changing figures back & forth and pressuring us to pay an amount without even providing an invoice”
Investigator’s Observations: This is a statement by the complainant.
Governing Rule: N/A
Complaint Item 9: “The following day they forwarded an invoice with a new price that has items listed that were poorly or not completed” Investigator’s Observations: This is a statement by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A
Complaint Item 10: “The following day they called numerous times demanding payment once we said this would be turned over to ROC” Investigator’s Observations: This is a statement by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A
Complaint Item 11: “On request we have numerous pictures to verify our claim”
Investigator’s Observations: This is a statement by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A
Complaint Item 12: “We heavily feel this is a scam job due to poor workmanship, fluent price changes & strong-arm approach for payment” Investigator’s Observations: This is a statement by the complainant. Governing Rule: N/A
ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were verified:
Warning Letter: Elements of a Contract.
Investigator’s Observations: The respondent did not provide a written contract prior to the work performed.
REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit a copy of a current contract form that complies with the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1158
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) Minimum Elements of a Contract.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) Namely, A.R.S. § 32-1158(B): When a contractor and an owner sign a contract, the contractor shall provide the owner with a legible copy of all documents signed and a written and signed receipt for and in the true amount of any cash paid to the contractor by the owner.
Inv. Johndrow set March 10, 2025 as the Directive deadline.
Respondent did not perform any corrective work.
On March 12, 2025, based on his Directive, Inv. Johndrow issued Compliance notes, which indicated that no corrective work had been performed; he forwarded the matter to the Legal Department.
On March 20, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging the following possible violations:
Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A)
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.
Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158
Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.
Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)
Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with 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.
On March 26, 2025, Mr. Harrison filed an Answer to the Citation. Mr. Harrison wrote:
This project was secured through a subcontractor, and Mr. Hull had agreed to a unit price through that subcontractor prior to the work being completed.
Upon completion, the driveway was initially measured using satellite imaging. At the time, I was unaware that the significant elevation changes on the property would cause the satellite measurement to overestimate the actual square footage. Mr. Hull expressed concerns about the measurement, and we then conducted an on-site measurement using a measuring wheel to obtain a more accurate figure.
Based on that in-person measurement, the cost of the work came out to approximately $32,000.00. Mr. Hull stated he was unwilling to pay that amount. In an effort to recover part of the investment made into the project, I offered a significantly discounted price of $22,800.00. Unfortunately, no payment was ever made.
At this point, I am no longer seeking payment for the work completed, nor do I have any interest in performing additional work or addressing any concerns related to this project.
On April 3, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the matter to convene on May 15, 2025 via Google Meet. Because Inv. Johndrow was unable to participate on that date, Complainant requested a continuance and the hearing was continued to June 16, 2025.
The Office of Administrative Hearings also issued an ORDER advising the parties about the virtual hearing and specifying how to connect to the administrative hearing via Google Meet.
At hearing, Inv. Johndrow testified consistent with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection, Directive and Compliance Notes. As reiterated above herein, the workmanship items consisted of Items #1, #3, and #6. Regarding Item #1, Inv. Johndrow found that the surface laid down did not cover the entire surface (there were bald spots) and the surface was not smooth. Regarding Item #3, the project appeared to have started and then stopped in the middle, demonstrating poor workmanship. Regarding Item #6, while there did not appear to have been an agreed upon price at that time, Respondent began the project but the work was not completed.
Inv. Johndrow noted that because Respondent intended to be paid for the work, Respondent was responsible for the work.
At hearing, Mr. Harrison explained that his subcontractor, “Frankie,” had arrived at Complainant’s home and discussed the project with Complainant before he had arrived. Mr. Harrison indicated he had arrived after the spraying of the tar, after the rock had been applied, and the driveway was being “rolled.” Mr. Harrison stated that they do chip sealing everywhere in the same way but also that this had been a steep driveway and, by the time he arrived, it was too late to advise Complainant it was too steep (inferring at hearing, that the driveway was too steep for a chip seal).
When asked by Complainant why the full driveway (including the top) had not been covered, Mr. Harrison stated that they went to the property line, that he can’t do work on “other” property, that they paved to the end of the concrete, and that the turn at the top of the driveway leads to gravel. Mr. Harrison stated that they had sufficient material to do the work, indicating he brings a full load of 100# and they only had needed 20# at the prior jobsite. Mr. Harrison opined that the chip seal had been done to industry standards and that it was standard practice to not have the rock completely submerged. Mr. Harrison indicated that, sometimes, there is “washout” on a driveway.
Mr. Harrison stated that he had thought the subcontractor had prepared a contract. Mr. Harrison indicated that he and Complainant had “negotiated” a price for the work, and after he sent the invoice, he had not followed up with Complainant on the matter. Mr. Harrison indicated that, once he is paid, there would be a one-year guarantee on the work.
At hearing, Complainant indicated that the work had not been complete, had not covered the driveway, and that there was “loose” gravel on the driveway despite any rolling that had taken place. As to the “loose” gravel, Complainant indicated that the gravel had damaged his vehicle tires and paint, as well as the transmission, because the trailer being pulled slips and slides on the gravel as it is being driven on the driveway.
Complainant provided additional pictures of the driveway, which he argued proved that there was no tar sprayed in areas. Complainant argued that Respondent did this work in 3 hours which should have taken 3 days; further, that Respondent should lose his license.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s license history and status with the Registrar on July 6, 2025. Respondent’s license record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 347509 is active, with two open cases, one of which is the instant case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101 et seq.
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.
In this case, Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119(A) and Ariz. Admin. Code Section 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).
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).
5. 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.").
6. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
7. 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).
8. Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards.
9. Following the issuance of the Directive mandating correction of workmanship items, Inv. Johndrow found that no corrective work had been performed and that more than a reasonable period of time had passed for the corrective work to have been completed.
10. Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Investigator-determined workmanship issues existed and, thus, Respondent was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A) for failure to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
12. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Investigator-determined contract issues existed and, thus, Respondent was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158 regarding required elements of a written contract. A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) sets forth the minimum elements of a contract:
Any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information:
1: The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and license number.
2: The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description.
3: The date the parties entered into the contract.
4: The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract.
5: A description of the work to be performed under the contract.
6: The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes.
7: The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner.
8: The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract.
9a: That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A.
9b: The contract shall contain the registrar’s telephone number and website address and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in section 32-1162, subsection A.
9c: The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the contract in at least ten- point bold type...
9d: ...and the contract shall be signed by the property owner and the contractor or the contractor’s designated representative.
13. Finally, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Investigator-determined workmanship issues existed and Respondent had failed to comply with the Directive by the Directive deadline. Therefore, Respondent is in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) for failure to take appropriate corrective action within the time period allowed in the Directive.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar impose discipline on Respondent’s ROC License 347509 as follows:
a one week business-day suspension on the effective date of the Registrar’s final Order in this matter; and,
on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final Order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contract(s) to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.
that Respondent pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 payable to the Registrar on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final Order. Further, 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 may 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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, July 7, 2025.
/s/ Kay Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Gregory Johndrow
[email redacted]
Ronald Herbert Hull
2403 W Ajo Way
Tucson, AZ 85746
[email redacted]
Accurate Paving LLC
8986 S Comanche Rd
Tucson, AZ 85735
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff