ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-13760-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

American Premier Builder LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Ever Lasting Masonry Inc

License No. ROC 210455,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-13760-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 11, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant American Premier Builder LLC was represented by Patrick T. Nackley. Ever Valenzuela appeared on behalf of Respondent Ever Lasting Masonry Inc. Investigator Charles Riddlehoover appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-7 and Respondent’s Exhibits A-F were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Ever Lasting Masonry LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 210455 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about September 15, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to install pavers at a home for which Complainant was the general contractor.

On or about December 18, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Charles Riddlehoover. The jobsite inspection was performed on January 23, 2025.

Investigator Riddlehoover then issued a Written Directive on or about February 3, 2025, which provided in pertinent part 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.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Front & Back Yard Patios and Walkways - pavers loose

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was observed that there are loose pavers in the back yard patio. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 2 - Front & Back Yard Patios and walkways – Pavers hallow

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection the Complainant demonstrated hollow sounds pavers in the front and back yard paver areas. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 3 - Front & Back Yard Patios and Walkways – Pavers Uneven

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was observed there are uneven pavers in the front yard patio. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 4 - Front & Back Yard Patios and Walkways – Pavers Stained

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was observed there is staining on the pavers at the grout joints in the front and back patios. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 5 - Front & Back Yard Patios - Pavers Drainage Pitch/ Slope Incorrect

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was verified that areas in the front and back yard patios have inadequate drainage pitch. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 6 - Front & Back Yard Patios- Required Grout Joint Spacing Not Followed

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was verified that areas in the front and back yard patios do not have the grout spacing required by the Manufacture installation instructions for large format tile. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 7 - Front & Back Yard Patios and Walkways – Paver Transition Height - Tripping Hazard

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was observed that the front porch has a tripping hazard/transition height. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 8 - Front & Back Yard Patios - Not installed per Manufacturer installation Guidelines

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 9 - Front & Back Yard Patios - Concrete Substrate Base Expansion Joints missing

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation could not be verified visually during the inspection but the Complainant has provided photographs during the construction that substantiate this allegation. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 10 - Front & Back Yard Patios and walkways – Architectural Urethane Sealant and Backer Rod Not Used

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation could not be verified visually during the inspection but the respondent confirmed the allegation verbally. Therefore Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 11 - Front & Back Yard Patios and Walkways – Required Paver/Substrate Mortar Coverage Not Followed (>95% Wet Aera)

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation could not be verified visually during the inspection but the Complainant has provided photographs during the construction that substantiate this allegation. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 12 - Front & Back Yard Patios - Incorrect Paver Joint Grout Used

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation could not be verified visually during the inspection but the Complainant has provided photographs during the construction that substantiate this allegation. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 13 - Front & back Yard patios and Walkways -Wet Saw Method Not Used - Chipped/ Rough Edges

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was observed that there are multiple chips along the cut edge of tiles. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 14 - Front & Back Yard Patios and Walkways – Required Paver / Substrate Mortar Coverage Not Followed (>95% Wet Area)

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation could not be verified visually during the inspection but the Complainant has provided photographs during the construction that substantiate this allegation. Respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship...

(All errors contained in the original)

On March 5, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about March 18, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about March 21, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on May 9, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

After a continuance, the hearing was held on August 11, 2025.

At hearing, Investigator Riddlehoover testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Riddlehoover testified that there was no work performed by Respondent during the corrective work period, thus there was no compliance jobsite inspection and a Citation was issued.

Kevin Hunter testified on behalf of Complainant. Mr. Hunter testified that he built a house and hired Respondent to install pavers at the property. Mr. Hunter then sold the property and during the inspection period, the homebuyer noticed deficiencies with the pavers. Respondent then performed some corrective work. Mr. Hunter testified that the problems were not resolved, and the homeowner filed a complaint with the Registrar against Complainant. Mr. Hunter testified that he then settled that matter with the homebuyer for $35,000.00 (which was the amount Complainant paid to Respondent for work). Because of this, Complainant filed this action.

Mr. Hunter testified that Respondent never performed the corrective work. Because of this, Mr. Hunter testified that he was seeking restitution for the $35,000.00 which he paid to the homebuyer.

Mr. Valenzuela testified on behalf of Respondent that he tried to get things fixed, but admitted that he did not perform any of the Directive work, as he believed all three parties were going to work out an agreement. Further, Mr. Valenzuela testified that he noticed Mr. Hunter of everything he did not the job therefore, he did not believe there were workmanship issues on all of the items.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 25, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 210455 was first issued on August 1, 2005, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano 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).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as there were multiple issues with the installation of the pavers. Respondent also did not dispute the same.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with the Written Directive. Respondent did not deny the same, and also produced no evidence that the parties agreed to some sort of delay while settlement negotiations were discussed. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Finally, the tribunal has considered Complainant’s request for restitution pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1156.01, and declines to award the same, as another legal venue is more appropriate for such request.

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. 210455 for a period of two days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $400.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 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 A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, August 25, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Ever Lasting Masonry Inc.

[email redacted]

Patrick T. Nackley

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff