ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-12959-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-05
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Robert Nelson,
COMPLAINANT
v.
The Villalpando Corporation, Inc.,
DBA: Villalpando Custom Homes Builders,
License No. ROC 195458,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-12959-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 16, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Robert Nelson.
For Respondent: Failed to appear.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Gregory Kinsfather.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Villalpando Corporation, Inc., (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 195458 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on May 4, 2004.
On or about June 13, 2024, Robert Nelson (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, construction of a barndominium.
On or about November 22, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Kinsfather, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on November 25, 2024, scheduling the inspection for January 8, 2025.
Investigator Kinsfather conducted the jobsite inspection on January 8, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Kinsfather issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on January 13, 2025 that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - deposit to metal building vendor never paid, though draw was authorized and paid to contractor(approximately $5000)
Investigator’s Observation: The complainant met me at his property where the building is intended to be built. At the time of the inspection there was no indication of any work that had started on the site itself. The complainant explained that he was unable to obtain the proper permits to start construction because he was not able to get the appropriate plans from the metal building producer as they were not paid by the respondent for them.
Prior to the jobsite inspection the respondent sent me the following response regarding the complaint:
"Good afternoon
Per our conversation I will not make the meeting tomorrow.
Permits were not in are scope of work. Unfortunately due some personal issues with illness I was unavailable to respond with owner. But effort was made to rectify the situation. Deposit was made and materials were allocated for project. Administration time was spent in the bidding process for this project. In the process of legal counsel and will reimburse money to owner deemed fair for both parties.
Respectfully
Cruz Villalpando
VCH Builders
[number redacted]
Roc 195458"
As such, the respondent is directed to complete the project per the 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. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Kinsfather of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on January 31, 2025.
On February 10, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on February 25, 2025. Respondent’s Answer stated that the project was not abandoned; Respondent was waiting for the permit, and Complainant fired Respondent before any work could be done.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On March 13, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for April 16, 2025.
The Registrar mailed the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. During the investigation, Investigator Kinsfather achieved communication with Respondent using the same address and email address.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on April 16, 2025.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be further continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Investigator Kinsfather testified in support of his investigation.
Complainant testified in support of investigator Kinsfather’s investigation.
Respondent failed to appear at the Hearing.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 5, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 195458 was active; there were 4 open complaints, 2 disciplined case, and 1 resolved/settled complaint against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record.
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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project or refused to perform work without a legal excuse in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 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 for 5 days Respondent’s License No. 195458.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E). No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 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, May 5, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Robert Nelson
[email redacted]
Greg Kinsfather
[email redacted]
The Villalpando Corporation, Inc.
DBA: Villalpando Custom Homes Builders
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff