ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-13481-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Victoria Mitchell,

COMPLAINANT

Summit Contractors LLC

License No. ROC 348784,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-13481-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 29, 2026

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Victoria Mitchell

Respondent: Erick Munoz

Registrar of Contractors: Charles Hover III, Assistant Attorney General

Madelyn Hayes

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar of Contractors Exhibits 1-15.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Summit Contractors, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 348784 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on November 21, 2023.

On or about December 11, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Victoria Mitchell (Complainant) alleging poor workmanship.

After an investigation a written directive was issued to correct the work. The Directive from the Registrar specified that:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Respondent did not attempt to perform any corrective work during the directive period.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation, and an administrative hearing was held. In the recommended Decision, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson considered Respondent’s arguments and concluded that Complainant established Respondent had, in relevant part, violated the Arizona statutes as charged. The Administrative Law Judge recommended a two-day suspension of Respondent’s license.

On or about August 1, 2025, the Registrar issued its Final Decision, adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision in full.

Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (the Fund) to recover the cost of completing or repairing the project. As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different contractors that Complainant had received to correct the project.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s compensable actual damages were $20,525.00. Respondent requested a hearing, believing the award was too high and the submitted repair estimates included items not in the original contract. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on January 29, 2026.

Madelyn Hayes testified for the Registrar, that Complainant was eligible to receive an award from the recovery fund. She testified in support of the documents and calculation provided in the exhibits, determining that Complainant was entitled to a $20,525.00 award.

Respondent testified that he independently requested and received bids from separate contractors. Respondent stated he asked the contractors to bid based on a 1,900 square foot house. Respondent testified that one contractor quoted a total price of $9,135.00 including the cost of up to 100 broken tiles, and another contractor quoted $11,450.00. Regarding the bids received by Complainant, Respondent argued that the bids included additional items not in the original contract, such as new bird stops and T-Tops. In the contract with Respondent, the existing bird stops and T-Tops were to be reused. Further, Respondent argued that the bids Complainant submitted were not detailed enough to know exactly what was included in the estimate.

Complainant testified that the calculation for determining how much material was required is total floor square footage multiplied by a pitch factor (between 1.03 and 1.87 – for slope) and adding 5-15 percent for material waste. For estimation and comparison purposes, Ms. Mitchell computed the calculation using the square footage for her home and a 1.87 pitch factor, resulting in 2,490 square feet before adding material waste. The bid selected by the Registrar to determine the award amount used 24 squares of material to estimate cost. Complainant argued that Respondent incorrectly calculated the square footage required for material. Further, Complainant testified that the bird stops and T-Tops could have been reused had they not been damaged; however, Respondent caused damage that required repair.

In closing, the Registrar argued that Respondent’s argument that the provided bids lacked sufficient detail lacked merit because Respondent’s own contract with Complainant was not detailed. The three bids provided were close in time, cost, and more detailed than the contract with Respondent. Additionally, the accepted bid included not only the cost of completing the project, but also the cost of repairing the damage caused by Respondent.

In closing, Respondent assumed responsibility for not bringing enough evidence to the initial, underlying hearing.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

An award from the residential contractors’ recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor’s violation. Actual damages:

1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.

2. Must be established by bids supplied by or the value of work performed by a person that is licensed pursuant to this chapter if the person is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter.

Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect 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.”

In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.

If work is not completed to workmanship standard, it is reasonable for a bidding contractor to include removal of prior work. The bidding contractor is not obligated to accept the condition of existing work.

Respondent had an opportunity to correct the faulty work following the Written Directive from the Registrar and failed to do so.

The preponderance of the evidence established that the award provided by the Fund accurately reflected Complainants’ actual damages. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $20,525.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainant receives a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $20,525.00.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, March 18, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Victoria Mitchell

[email redacted]

Summit Contractors LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff