ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-13481-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Victoria Mitchell

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Summit Contractors LLC

License No. ROC 348784,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-13481-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 1, 2025

APPEARANCES: Victoria Mitchell (Complainant) appeared on behalf of herself. Eric Munoz appeared on behalf of Summit Contractors LLC (Respondent).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits A and B.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On or about October 16, 2024, Complainant and Respondent entered into a residential construction contract, wherein Respondent would perform an entire roof reset of Complainant’s home for the amount of $8,600.00.

The contract did not include an Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC or

Registrar) license number, the name of Respondent’s owner, an estimated date of completion, and information about Complainant’s right to file a complaint with the ROC for violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A).

On or about November 19, 2024, Respondent started work.

On or about December 4, 2024, Respondent stopped work.

On or about December 11, 2024, the Registrar received a complaint from Complainant alleging poor workmanship on the part of Respondent.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to one of its investigators, Gregory Johndrow (Investigator Johndrow).

On March 10, 2025, Investigator Johndrow conducted a job-site

inspection. Investigator Johndrow discovered that Respondent had performed poor work in connection with eight complaint items.

On March 20, 2025, the Registrar issued a Written Directive to

Respondent requiring that Respondent correct complaint items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, by appropriate means, no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 10, 2025. See the Registrar’s administrative record, pgs. 64-68. Through the Written Directive, the Registrar also ordered Respondent to submit to the Registrar a contract that complies with the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158. The March 20, 2025 Written Directive provided, in relevant part, as follows:

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

Complaint Item 1: “The entire left side has incorrect spacing, tiles do not lock in several places.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The conditions described are present in the described location.

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: “Concrete balls are cracking and are installed wrong.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The mortar used for the tile is cracking, has not been applied in a uniform manner and was applied excessively over the roof tile surface.

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: “metal not flushing properly (dents, bends, gaps)”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out multiple areas where the bird stop has been bent, dented and not installed evenly under the raised profile of the roof tile.

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 5: “Tile caps installed crooked on front of the house and wrong tile caps installed on back with gaps throughout.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The barrel tile described conditions were observed in both locations.

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 6: “Poor fascia installation, no brackets attached. Installed broken tile above front door.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The replaced fascia in the back of the residence was installed in multiple pieces, where a single piece of fascia should be used. The fascia has warped and become detached in one location. No spliced brackets were used on the underside to match the existing applications. The end barrel tile, installed on the rake edge, above the front door is broken.

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 7: “vent covers are installed poorly on the roof.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The lead flashings used throughout the roof are installed incorrectly.

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 8: “Wrong material used for fascia, fascia installed wrong, not at 45 degrees, with gaps”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The replaced fascia in the back of the residence was installed in multiple pieces, where a single piece of fascia should be used. The fascia has warped and become detached in one location. The miter cuts on the installed pieces are incorrect, resulting in gaps between the materials.

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 10: “No drip edge. Uneven spacing between tiles.”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The drip edge was installed in the required locations. The barrel tile installed at the back of the residence is unevenly spaced. 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.

Respondent failed to make the required corrections by the due date.

On April 24, 2025, the ROC issued to Respondent a Citation dated April 24, 2025, through which ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A) (3), (A) (12), and (A) (22); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158 and Ariz. Admin Code R4-9-108(A).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an

evidentiary hearing.

On March 19, 2025, the ROC issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on July 1, 2025.

At hearing, Investigator Johndrow testified consistently with his job-site

inspection notes and the Written Directive.

Complainant testified on behalf of herself. Eric Munoz, Respondent’s

qualifying party, testified on behalf of Respondent.

Testimony of Victoria Mitchell

Mr. Munoz told Ms. Mitchell that Respondent would a week to complete

the job. However, Respondent did not complete the job until three weeks after it started. Respondent’s workers would come to the job-site at an “unreasonable” time in the morning and work for a couple of hours before leaving. Ms. Mitchell stated that she later discovered that Respondent’s workers had no roofing experience. Respondent installed unlatching tile. “We’ll be back in two weeks to seal the concrete balls.”

Testimony of Eric Munoz

Mr. Munoz stated that Respondent performed a full roof refit of

Complainant’s home. Mr. Munoz asserted that Respondent did not complete the project and needed additional time to finish. At some point during the project, Respondent had to order additional tiles. However, the company where Respondent originally ordered the tiles closed down. Respondent searched for tiles that would lock in with the existing tiles. Mr. Munoz told Complaint that Respondent would be back in a few weeks to finish the job and that there were still some areas on the roof hat required adjustments. However, Mr. Munoz stated that Complainant filed a complaint with the ROC. Mr. Munoz stated that he advised Complaint that there were some areas that were damages and that he would be installing brackets.

Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According

to the information available on the website on July 12, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on November 21, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is only one open complaint against Respondent. Respondent’s license has never been disciplined. The lack of prior discipline taken is considered a mitigating factor in imposing discipline.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1101 et seq.

2. Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory

violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses and factors in mitigation of the penalty by the same evidentiary standard. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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)

3. Upon review of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law

Judge concludes that Respondent provided insufficient evidence to rebut the credible testimony of Investigator Johndrow regarding Respondent’s poor work. Mr. Munoz asserted that the job was incomplete. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent performed poor work, including but not limited to improper installations, that were substantiated by Investigator Johndrow. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (3).

4. The undisputed evidence established that Respondent’s contract did not include a include an ROC license number, the name of Respondent’s owner, no estimated date of completion, and a statement that the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A), which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A) (12) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.

5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Written Directive without valid justification, which is a 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 License No. 348784 issued to Summit LLC, for two days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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) (7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide to the Registrar copies of its form contract that has been revised to comply with all of the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to provide proof that it has so revised its form contracts, it is ordered that Respondent’s license be suspended for three days.

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, July 12, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Victoria Mitchell Mitchell

[email redacted]

Summit Contractors LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff