ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-13784-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Anna E. Biava,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

MAJESTIC BUILDERS, LLC

License No. ROC 352969,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-13784-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 22, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Anna Biava appeared on her own behalf with her husband, Michael Kozeliski. Greg Marsh appeared on behalf of Respondent Majestic Builders, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Doug Barrett appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None

FINDINGS OF FACT

Majestic Builders, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 352969 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Greg Marsh is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Manager.

In or about November 2023, Anna Biava (“Complainant”) and her husband, Michael Kozeliski, purchased their home. Shortly thereafter, they contracted with Respondent for the remodel of the home. The parties did not have a written contract and Respondent was not licensed at the time the parties entered into the contract.

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

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Doug Barrett. After a January 21, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Barrett issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated January 23, 2025, that provided 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 Tuesday, February 11, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: 4 - The only window caulked is sloppy and the weep holes are plugged.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the south east bedroom window and the exterior weep holes were plugged and there was missing sealant/caulking around the window. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5 - The pool gate in the alley was installed backwards and does not self-close and latch from the inside.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the gate to the back alley and it does not meet the requirements for access around a pool. Contractor should correct the gate per the local building official's requirements.

Complaint Item: 10 - Five pocket doors were installed incorrectly and three of them were framed incorrectly.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed three pocket doors, in the addition and bathroom, and they had a gap when closed. The doors also did not have a guide installed. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 11 - The back wall was never finished repairing the cracks in the mortar.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the block wall repair by the pool equipment and the texture was cracking. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

Complaint Item: 1 - The light location in the living room is wrong. It has twice as many lights as planned.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. There is no contract in place for any work performed and the complainant has paid various trades directly for their work along with the respondent for their work, acting in part as their own general contractor. The electrician was paid directly for their work by the complainant and the scope of work is not known. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent Failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.

Complaint Item: 2 - The electrical infrastructure for lights is completely missing for addition.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. This item refers to the can lights not being installed. There is no contract in place for any work performed and the complainant has paid various trades directly for their work along with the respondent for their work, acting in part as their own general contractor. The electrician was paid directly for their work by the complainant and the scope of work is not known. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent Failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.

Complaint Item: 3 - The roof leaks at the skylight.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. This item was not observed during the inspection.

Complaint Item: 6 - Pool auto filler valve leaks.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. There is no contract in place for any work performed and the complainant has paid various trades directly for their work along with the respondent for their work, acting in part as their own general contractor. The plumber was paid directly for their work by the complainant and the scope of work is not known. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent Failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.

Complaint Item: 7 - Cleanout not cut and cover added.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. There is no contract in place for any work performed and the complainant has paid various trades directly for their work along with the respondent for their work, acting in part as their own general contractor. The plumber was paid directly for their work by the complainant and the scope of work is not known. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent Failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.

Complaint Item: 8 - The shower fixture in the added bathroom is too deep and the fixture will not attach.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. There is no contract in place for any work performed and the complainant has paid various trades directly for their work along with the respondent for their work, acting in part as their own general contractor. The plumber was paid directly for their work by the complainant and the scope of work is not known. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent Failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.

Complaint Item: 9 - Bathroom addition is framed too tight for a toilet.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The distance between the walls measured 31 inches and a minimum of 30 inches is required. No correction required.

All errors in original.

After the February 11, 2025 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Barrett scheduled a Compliance Jobsite Inspection on February 18, 2025, at which he ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive, as none of the items ordered to be corrected had been completed. Thereafter, Investigator Barrett forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Barrett testified consistently with the findings contained in the Jobsite Inspection notes, the Written Directive, and the Compliance Notes. Investigator Barrett testified that the parties’ contract was verbal and that there was a dispute as to whether Respondent had been acting in the capacity of a general contractor versus a project manager. Investigator Barrett testified that he believed Respondent was acting as a general contractor for the project due to the fact that Respondent was accepting payments from Complainant, and hiring and paying subcontractors directly. However, the homeowners were also paying subcontractors directly, and that is the reason Investigator Barrett did not verify seven (7) of the items of Complaint.

Complainant testified that she agreed with Investigator Barrett’s testimony and findings. Complainant testified that Respondent “found” the subcontractors and supervised the work and that all invoices were paid upon request and according to the amounts Respondent negotiated with the subcontractors.

Mr. Marsh testified that initially, he did not possess a contractor’s license and was working for Complainant’s father as a project manager overseeing and supervising subcontractors. Mr. Marsh asserted that he was acting in the capacity of a project manager for this project, not a general contractor, as he was to be paid ten percent of the total cost of the project. Mr. Marsh testified that he did not mark up the price of materials or the labor costs. Mr. Marsh further testified that when he presented invoices for materials to Complainant and requested payment for materials, Complainant refused to pay, stating that “it took too long,” and therefore, he had to pay subcontractors “out of his own pocket.” Mr. Marsh testified that this was a “learning experience” for him.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 8, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 352969 was first issued on June 21, 2024, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

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

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. 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).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 352969 for a period of three (3) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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 (30) 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, May 9, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by e-mail to:

Tom Cole

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

[email redacted]

MAJESTIC BUILDERS, LLC

[email redacted]

Anna E. Biava

[email redacted]

Doug Barrett

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff