ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-13173-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Elizabeth Lipman Leonard,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Harvey Swain Evans

DBA: Evans Construction & Design,

License No. ROC 336043,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-13173-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 23, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Dr. Elizabeth Lipman Leonard on her own behalf with witness Stephen Lawton. Harvey Swain Evans, DBA: Evans Construction & Design on his own behalf with witness Lanita Costilla. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Fagerburg.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”); Complainant Exhibits 1 through 26; Respondent Exhibits 1 through 22.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Harvey Swain Evans, DBA: Evans Construction & Design (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 336043 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Respondent has a KB-2 Dual Residential and Small Commercial contractor license, the General Residential Contractor classification allows the licensee to construct and repair all or any part of a residential structure or appurtenance, but work related to electrical, plumbing, air condition systems, boilers, swimming pools, spas and water wells must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor.

On or about May 29, 2024, Elizabeth Lipman Leonard (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a residential home remodel project which included bathroom, kitchen, relocated a countertop and laundry room modifications. Complainant’s home was built in 1994, located in Phoenix, Arizona. Complainant met with four different general contractors, two kitchen designers, and eventually hired Respondent. The total contract amount was $102,907.71 and Complainant paid a total of $80,500.00 with work started on or about June 3, 2024. On the original contract and numerous change orders, there was no estimated date of completion notated.

On or about December 2, 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 David Fagerburg. On January 6, 2026, a jobsite inspection took place with both parties present. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Fagerburg 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 Wednesday, February 19, 2025.

Investigator Notes:

1: Complaint item 11 has been separated into 2 individual complaint items and will be addressed as complaint items 11a and 11b for clarity.

2: Upon reviewing the signed written contract submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is at least 1 of the 9 minimum elements of a contract missing violating A.R.S. §32-1158(A) Minimum elements of a contract. Specifically #4.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: No permits were obtained for major remodel involving electrical, plumbing and mechanical changes

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged performing this major remodeling project that included electrical and plumbing modifications in the kitchen, bathroom and laundry room without a permit. The complainant stated that not only was the microwave circuit relocated but there were can lights added in the bathroom and laundry room as well as under cabinet lighting in the kitchen. The respondent stated that the microwave is on a designated circuit. See P (3), P (4), P (15), P (20), P (21), P (44) and P (45). Upon reviewing the City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department website for this property address I am able to verify there has been no recent permits issued. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building g authority, pass all required inspections and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 2: Plumbing relocated for shower is not centered in the shower re valve, water regulator and drain placement

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in 1 of 2 bathrooms both parties agree there used to be a bathtub where the shower is located. During this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify the drain and shower valve are not centered per industry standard. See P (5) thru P (11). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and correct the shower drain and valve that are not centered and complete the project per contract by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 3: Toilet in one bathroom is only 13.5 inches from shower wall with insufficient clearance

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify the toilet in one of the bathrooms is not installed per R307.1 Space required per Section P2705.1 Water closets, lavatories and bidets. A water closet, lavatory or bidet shall not be set closer than 15 inches from its center to any side wall partition or vanity. See P (12) and P (13). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections, correct the toilet that is approximately 13.5 inches from the shower wall and not per IRC code and complete the project per contract by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 4: Electrical changes made in one bath, laundry room, and kitchen without permit.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged performing electrical modifications in one of the bathrooms, laundry room, kitchen and bedroom without a permit. See P (14), P (15), P (21), P (44) and P (45). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority and pass all required inspections and complete the project per contract by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 5: Plumbing relocated in laundry room and bathroom without permit.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the laundry room I observed water supply lines protruding from the back wall with a stacked washer dryer appliance installed and connected to a water supply washing machine box and drain. The exhaust vent from the dryer is not connected to the exhaust vent that is installed at the exterior wall along the floor. See P (20) and P (21). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and complete the project per contract by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 7: Dryer vent was relocated and along the floor line preventing installation of new cabinets

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the laundry room I observed a stackable washer and dryer unit installed. The vent for the dryer is connected to the wall behind the dryer and then exits the wall at the floor where cabinets are to be installed then continues along the floor and exits the exterior wall. See P (20) and P (21). The respondent acknowledged there are other options to route the dryer vent for an additional cost. The complainant argues that the respondent was well aware of the existing conditions, where the cabinets are to be installed and should have considered all options prior to providing a written contract and scope of work. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and complete the project per contract by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 11a: A kitchen drawer doesn’t fully open and hits refrigerator Incomplete duct work in laundry room

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify the kitchen drawer doesn't fully open and hits refrigerator. See P (22) and P (23). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and complete the project per contract by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 12: Kitchen peninsula facing improperly ordered and installed doesn’t match other cabinets.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation at the kitchen peninsula I observed and am able to verify the direction of the grain on the facing of the peninsula is running horizontally and is not uniform with the remainder of the kitchen cabinet grain direction which is running vertically. See P (28) and P (29). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and complete the project per contract by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 16: Contractor refused to complete laundry room which remains incomplete

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the laundry room I observed and am able to verify the laundry room remodel is incomplete with no cabinets installed and the dryer vent is running along the floor. See P (20) and P (21). The complainant explained that other cabinet contractors were consulted and neither would install cabinets with the dryer vent running through them and suggested a soffit be built to relocate the dryer vent. The complainant stated that the respondent abandoned the laundry room portion of the project after the original cabinets were installed and then removed with the dryer vent running through them, the cabinets were damaged upon delivery and never should have been installed. Based on the date work stopped November 27, 2024 it appears the respondent abandoned the project. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and complete the laundry room per contract by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 17: No leak test was done on new shower installation

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in 1 of 2 bathrooms both parties agree there used to be a bathtub where the new shower is located. The respondent acknowledged a permit was not obtained or any inspections performed. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and complete the project per contract by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 20: Owner evidence confirms that contract cannot be completed for the unpaid contract balance

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant stated that based on the amount owed the project cannot be completed for the amount due to an incomplete laundry room, cabinet deficiencies and relocating the toilet that is not to code. During this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify the project is incomplete. See P (20) and P (21). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and complete the project per contract by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 22: Two corner cabinets in kitchen have internal components that hit cabinet wall and don’t properly operate

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the kitchen I observed 2 corner cabinets with rotating internal components that hit the back panel of the cabinets. See P (24) thru P (27). The respondent acknowledged designing and installing the cabinets and stated that the internal components were installed by the cabinet fabricator. Upon further observation the corner cabinet doors are smaller than the adjacent cabinet doors and had the cabinets been designed in uniform it is likely the internal components would have adequate clearance to operate properly. The complainant stated that anything stored with weight on the rotating internal components falls off and could possibly damage the cabinets. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections, correct the 2 corner cabinets in the kitchen that have internal components that hit the cabinet wall, don't operate properly and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 2: Unbeknownst to me, Evans changed the footprint of the kitchen pushing back the peninsula base cabinets into the existing kitchen seating area. A condition of this remodel was that the footprint of the kitchen remain unchanged so that no flooring changes would be needed. Consequently, the kitchen was enlarged by approximately nine inches and flooring needed to be replaced. Most importantly, this unapproved modification resulted in shortchanging the counter resulting in insufficient clearance to enable peninsula seating that was eliminated without my consent. The existing kitchen had seating for three at the peninsula. I lost three seats in the kitchen because there was no longer the 9 inch minimum required to enable stool seating.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a kitchen peninsula countertop installed. See P (28). The overhang for the seating area varies from 7-1/2” on the right to 6-13/16” on the left and is not uniform. See P (30) thru P (32). Industry standard for a kitchen countertop overhang for seating is a minimum of 10”. Upon reviewing the written contract submitted I am unable to verify that the condition of the remodel was that the footprint of the kitchen remain unchanged so that no flooring changes would be needed. The respondent stated that the footprint was only modified by 4” not 9”. During this jobsite investigation the complainant stated that the change in the cabinet footprint was not authorized, was not provided with dimensional plans and never saw what the respondent installed and only a concept drawing was provided. The complainant stated that fortunately there was left over flooring that was installed to accommodate for the larger footprint of the cabinets. See P (28). The respondent argued that a walk thru with dimensional plans was reviewed by the complainant prior to starting the work. To date the respondent has not provide a signed and approved dimensional plan showing the cabinet footprint. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections correct the peninsula countertop with an overhang that is not uniform or to industry standards and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 3: The kitchen was demolished for this remodel. At that time, Evans should have squared off the soffit running through the kitchen to allow for the proper fit of the upper cabinets on the west wall. This was not done. Consequently the crown molding (scribing) on the top of these cabinets does not fit correctly. This is unsightly and needs to be corrected.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the kitchen the complainant showed me where the soffit above the upper cabinets was not squared off prior to installing the cabinets and the reveals are unsightly and not uniform. See P (33) thru P (36). The respondent stated that squaring off the soffit was not part of the scope of work and the uneven soffits were existing. The respondent acknowledged accepting the surface of the existing soffit above the cabinets. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and correct the soffit above the upper kitchen cabinets with reveals that are unsightly and not uniform by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 4: The cabinet above the refrigerator is not centered. The crown molding is not properly installed. Overlays need to be fitted to the sides of this cabinet.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the kitchen above the refrigerator I observed a cabinet that is not centered with 2 different size fillers on either side of the cabinet. See P (33), P (34) and P (36). Both parties agree there was a signed change order to modify the wall next to the refrigerator. The crown molding not properly installed has been previously addressed in addendum complaint item 3. I am able to verify the cabinet is not centered on the wall above the refrigerator. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections, correct the cabinet above the refrigerator that is not centered with side reveals that are not uniform and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 6: The right upper sink cabinet is out of alignment.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed cabinets installed in the kitchen with reveals and door spacing that is not uniform. See P (27), P (29), P (33) thru P (38) and P (46). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and correct the cabinets that are out of alignment throughout and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 7: The two blind corner cabinet doors are not soft close. As mentioned in the original complaint the interior shelves rub and bump the walls on both blind corners.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify there are 2 blind corner cabinet doors that do not soft close hinges while all other hinges are soft close. The remainder of this complaint item has been previously addressed in complaint item 22. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and correct the 2 blind corner kitchen cabinets that are not soft close and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 8: The peninsula panel next to the trash cabinet should be flush with the cabinet door.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where the peninsula panel next to the trash cabinet does not have a face frame that is flush with the door and is not uniform with adjacent cabinet on the opposite side. See P (29). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and correct the peninsula panel next to the trash cabinet that is not uniform with adjacent cabinet on the opposite side and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 10: There should be overlays for both pantry doors.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify the overlays are missing at both pantry cabinet doors and are not uniform with the remaining kitchen cabinets installed with an overlay. See P (40) thru P (43). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections, correct the missing overlays at the 2 cabinet pantry doors and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 11: There is only 1/8th inch clearance between the upper cabinets on the south wall and both sides of the range hood. At least a one inch minimum should have been allowed. Consequently the cabinet doors do not fully open and hit the range hood. This deficiency could have been prevented by having the door handles on the opposite side of these cabinets so that the doors opened away from the range hood instead of toward it. This could have been done with the existing cabinet to the left of the stove but not on the right because of a design flaw where the cabinet has a double door. A single cabinet should have been installed in this location.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the kitchen the complainant showed me that the 2 wall cabinets on either side of the stovetop do not fully open and come in contact with the range hood. See P (42) and P (43). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections, correct the cabinets on the south wall that do not fully open and come in contact with the range hood and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 12: The undercounter lighting shines through the bottom of the molding and needs to be adjusted and corrected.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the kitchen I observed under counter lighting installed. With the lighting switch on and touching the wiring connector the lighting shorted out and turned off. See P (44) and P (45. The respondent acknowledged the under counter tape lighting connector needs to be adjusted. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections, correct the under counter lighting that shorts out and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 13: The crown molding seams were not appropriately concealed and show. There is patching above one area in the corner of the west wall where the scribing is poor and needs to be redone. Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify the crown molding seams were not appropriately concealed and show above the kitchen cabinets. See P (33), P (35) and P (46). Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections, correct the crown molding seams that are not appropriately concealed and show on the west wall by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 14: There are items returned to the cabinet manufacturer that are under warranty and need replacement. Evans did not provide me with a list of outstanding items to be reconciled or instructions as to how any other issues with the cabinetry should be resolved. Evans never provided me with the name of the cabinet selection, cabinet specifications, or warranty information. The only information that I received was the name of cabinet manufacturer. I have no information about the specific line of cabinets selected, model numbers, or finishes. Further, I was under the impression that the cabinets were ordered directly by Evans. Only later after the ruined laundry room cabinets were returned did I find out out that Evans could not purchase cabinets directly from the manufacturer for either the kitchen or the laundry room. Evans purchased these cabinets from ABT Home Renovations and Design and never informed me that they were not directly ordered by him.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged that 1 pantry door, 1 upper cabinet door and 2 glass doors have been reordered and when delivered will be replaced. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections, ensure the cabinet doors are replaced and complete the project by appropriate means.

. . . .

Addendum Complaint Item 17: The trash bin unit that has a tap feature to open does not work as intended.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where the trash bin unit with a tap feature to open does not operate as intended. The respondent stated that the complainant request to remove the mechanism as it was too hard to push. The complainant disagreed and stated a request to adjust the mechanism was all that was requested as the mechanism was not operating properly. I asked both parties if there is any written documentation to remove the mechanism entirely. To date I have not received any written documentation that the complainant request to remove the mechanism. Prior to completing the project or performing any corrective work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the local building authority, pass all required inspections and ensure the tap to open feature on the trash bin unit is operating properly.

. . . .

All errors in original.

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Investigator Fagerburg spoke with Mr. Evans who acknowledged he applied for a permit on February 18, 2025, a day prior to the deadline. Investigator Fagerburg informed Mr. Evans that applying for the permit should have been a priority. As such, the deadline was not extended nor was there a request for an extension. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Fagerburg was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

On February 24, 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)(2)(b); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Fagerburg testified that first and foremost a permit was required due to electrical and plumbing modifications. Per Respondent’s license, plumbing and electrical work must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor. Many complaint items required a permit to move forward on the work. Mr. Evans admitted that a few of the complaint items required a permit.

In regards to Complaint Item 3, Mr. Evans testified that he was in compliance with the 15 inch clearance of the toilet from the shower and that Investigator Fagerburg measured from the wrong place. Investigator Fagerburg testified that he did verify the complaint, however, the local building official would determine whether the installation was per code but the project required a permit first.

Per the Written Directive, Complaint Items 16 and 20 were classified as job abandonment, in particular, to the laundry room cabinetry. Lanita Costilla, designer, on behalf of Respondent, testified that they did not abandon the laundry room. Complainant ordered cabinets from Waypoint Cabinetry to install in the laundry room. While Complainant was in Prescott, Arizona, Respondent installed the laundry room cabinets. However, the broom closet cabinet was not correct because it had a shelf in it and the way the dryer vent was installed in the bottom cabinet was problematic. Complainant did not want the cabinets and asked Respondent to uninstall them. Ms. Costilla informed Complainant that Waypoint Cabinetry could offer a solution to resolve the problem, but Complainant wanted them removed. Respondent uninstalled these cabinets, placed them in Complainant’s garage, and credited Complainant the cost of the cabinets. Ms. Costilla testified that Complainant informed them that she was going to reach out to another manufacturer. Respondent did not believe there was anything left to do in regards to the laundry room cabinet installation.

Mr. Evans testified that the kitchen island peninsula originally was going to be tiled. However, Complainant no longer wanted to go that route due to expense which only left the one piece panel to be installed. The panel was the same material as the kitchen cabinets but the grain on the cabinets was vertical. Due to the panel being one slab, it could only be installed horizontally because cutting the slab would leave a seam. As such, Respondent credited Complainant for the tile and installed the slab which was designated under Complaint Item 12.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 23, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 336043 was first issued on December 22, 2021, and is Active. Such prior License record also reflects no 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.”

In regards to the job abandonment allegation contained in Complaint Items 16 and 20, the evidence established that Respondent did not abandon these items. The credible testimony of Ms. Costilla established that Complainant was going to reach out to another cabinet manufacturer and Respondent credited Complainant for the cabinets. As such, this matter was settled and Respondent’s obligation was over. Accordingly, Complainant has not established that Respondent abandoned the contract per Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence clearly established and Respondent admitted that it did not complete the project in accordance with the applicable building code in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded the applicable building code in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

The evidence established that Respondent’s work in some of the complaint items listed in the Written Directive was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. This project was extremely difficult partially due to all of the change orders. However, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the majority of the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A). Respondent was not responsible for poor workmanship on Complaint Item 12.

The evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include one of the required elements of a contract, the estimated date of completion, set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).

The KB-2 Dual Residential and Small Commercial contractor license clearly outlines that work related to electrical, plumbing, air condition systems, boilers, swimming pools, spas and water wells must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor. The evidence established that Respondent performed the electrical and some of the plumbing work on this project. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16).

Lastly, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to 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 336043 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.

It is further recommended that, 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 contracts 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, May 13, 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]

David Fagerburg

[email redacted]

James N. Hanson

LANG & KLAIN PC

6730 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 101

Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Elizabeth Lipman Leonard

10407 North Central Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85020

[email redacted]

Harvey Swain Evans

DBA: Evans Construction & Design,

16329 W. Cottonwood St.

[email redacted]

Mark Molique

Molique Law, PLLC

11111 N. Scottsdale Rd. Ste. 205R

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff