ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-13336-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Request Manufacturing Inc,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Monrad Veldman Construction LLC

DBA: Venn Construction,

License No. ROC 300445,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-13336-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 3, 2025

APPEARANCES: Attorney Marc C. Cavness represented Request Manufacturing Inc. (Respondent). Respondent did not appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Notice of Hearing packet (Packet); Complainant Exhibits 6 through 9.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Monrad Veldman Construction LLC dba Venn Construction is the holder of License No. 300455 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) on August 3, 2015.

On December 5, 2024, the ROC received from Complainant a Non-Payment Complaint Form alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant for work performed. In that Complaint, Complainant alleged that its February 21, 2024 invoice in the amount of $46,825.00 remained unpaid.

On January 31, 2025, ROC issued its Citation citing Respondent for alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statute (Ariz. Rev. Stat.) § 32-1154(A)(10), failure to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for services rendered.

On February 14, 2025, Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation indicating:

As indicated in prior communications, Venn Construction has received payment from its client on the project referenced in [this Complaint] since receiving the Complaint. . . . Venn has been working to coordinate the release of these funds since December of 2024.

The Complaint was not resolved informally and the ROC subsequently set the matter for hearing.

At the time of the April 3, 2025 hearing, Shannan McLaine, owner and Qualifying Party of Complainant, testified that, on April 2, 2025, Respondent had informed Complainant that a check was ready for Complainant to pick up. Ms. McLaine indicated she requested that Respondent courier the check over to Complainant.

Ms. McLaine deposited the check on April 2, 2025. At hearing, on April 3, 2025, Ms. McLaine testified that the check had cleared.

For the record, Complainant noted that, on December 18, 2024, Respondent had notified Complainant that it had collected the finds on the project and that a check would be ready for Complainant on December 23, 2024. Although Complainant requested that the check be sent to Complainant by FedEx; however, Complainant did not receive a check. When queried regarding the check on January 14, 2025, Complainant questioned whether Respondent had actually mailed the check. Complainant’s position was Respondent had abused the system.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and has been properly brought before OAH for adjudication.

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 is 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.

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.

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)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

The evidence of record demonstrated that Respondent owed monies to Complainant that were not yet paid to Complainant at the time Complainant filed the complaint. However, at the time of the administrative hearing, Complainant testified that it has received the monies owed to Complainant by Respondent. Therefore, the issue raised in the Complaint is now resolved and the matter may be dismissed.

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar close Case No. 2024-13336 as resolved.

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, April 25, 2025.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

Marc C. Cavness, Esq.

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Monrad Veldman Construction LLC

DBA: Venn Construction

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff