ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-13513-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-23
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Beebe Plumbing, Inc.,
DBA: Beebe Brothers Plumbing
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Bolte Custom Homes LLC
License No. ROC 299270,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-13513-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 3, 2025
APPEARANCES: Tara Simmons appeared on behalf of Beebe Plumbing, Inc. (hereinafter “Complainant). Mark Bolte appeared on behalf of Bolte Custom Homes, LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
According to the public website of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, (hereinafter “Registrar” or “ROC”), the Registrar issued License No. ROC 299270 to Bolte Custom Homes, LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
Mark Bolte is Respondent’s qualifying party.
Starrick Plumbing, Inc. agreed to perform plumbing work Respondent at several buildings on E. Coulter Street in Phoenix, AZ, (hereinafter “Coulter project. Starrick Plumbing, Inc. also agreed to perform plumbing work for Respondent at a lot on W. Missouri, (hereinafter “Missouri project”).
Complainant issued invoices to Starrick Pluming, Inc. for work performed on the Coulter and Missouri projects.
Complainant purchased Starrick Pluming, Inc. in 2023.
In February of 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent failed to pay the total amount of $34,716.60 for work performed on the Coulter and Missouri projects.
On February 3, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (hereinafter “A.R.S.”) A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
A hearing was held on April 3, 2025.
At hearing, Tara Simmons testified on behalf of Complainant. Mark Bolte testified on behalf of Respondent.
Ms. Simmons stated that Complainant completed four trims on the Missouri project, but Respondent did not pay Complainant for the work. Respondent did not pay Complainant the retention payments.
13. Regarding the Coulter project, Mr. Bolte explained Complainant caused leaks that required mold remediation work. The mold was never properly remediated. As a result, retention payments were never made to Complainant.
14. Mr. Bolte explained that Complainant failed to complete the work on the Missouri project and a new plumber was hired and paid to the complete the work in the amount of $8,267.35. Mr. Bolte stated that Complainant is owed the difference between the balance owed on the Missouri project in the amount of $22,536.13 less $8,267.35.
The difference between $22,536.13 and $8,267.35, is $14,268.78.
CONCLUSIONS OF 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.A.C. R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The 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.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
The Administrative Law Judge may consider the ROC’s administrative
record. See A.A.C. R4-9-118.
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice.” A.R.S. § 1-211(B).
The purpose of the ROC’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
9. A.R.S. § 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 . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.”
10. Payment for “[s]services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor” does not include interest, finance charges, lien charges, or other charges that are based solely on contract terms.
11. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law judge concludes that Complainant failed to meet its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that payment became due on the Coulter project. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Complainant caused leaks and mold that was never properly remediated. Complainant failed to meet its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it completed the work on the Missouri project. Respondent contended that a second contractor was hired to complete the work. The difference between the amount owed on the Missouri project in the amount of $22,536.13, less $8,267.35, is $14,268.78. Complainant has failed to meet its burden to establish that any amount exceeding $14,268.78 became due.
12. The preponderance shows that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
13. Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
14. Because A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) only includes a licensee’s failure to pay for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor, not late fees, interest, or other consequential or contractual damages, the Administrative Law Judge does not recommend that Respondent be required to pay late fees as a condition of keeping its contractor’s license in good standing.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the ROC suspend license number 299270 held by Bolte Custom Homes, LLC, until it has provided to the ROC, and the ROC has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant exceeding $14,268.78 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the ROC receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant in certified funds, the ROC may close the Complaint in Case No. 2024A-13513.
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, April 23, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Beebe Plumbing Inc.
DBA: Beebe Brothers Plumbing
[email redacted]
Bolte Custom Homes LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff