ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-13995-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Norma Thorn,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Advanced Air Systems LLC,

License No. ROC 265200,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-13995-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 16, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Shawn Thorn on behalf of Complainant Norma Thorn. Tyler Myers and Mikey Marsical on behalf of Respondent Advanced Air Systems LLC. Investigator Chris Allison on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”) and Addendum Exhibits.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Advanced Air Systems, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 265200 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about July 8, 2024, Norma Thorn (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new central air conditioning system which included an air handler and duct work (“HVAC”). The system was to be installed at Complainant’s residential home located in St. Johns, Arizona in Apache County.

When installing a brand new central HVAC system in the City of St. Johns, a contractor must obtain a permit from the local building department. Respondent did not acquire a permit prior to beginning the work.

On or about July 8, 2024, work began on the project and ended around July 28, 2024. After the installation, the condensation line to the air handler located in the ceiling backed up, water overflowed the secondary drain pan due to an excessive amount of condensation which created a water leak, water damage occurred, and Complainant’s ceiling caved in.

On or about December 27, 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 Chris Allison. On January 14, 2025, a jobsite inspection was held with both parties present.

On January 31, 2025, Investigator Allison issued a Written Directive to Respondent 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 Sunday, February 16, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 – Permit through building department was not obtained

Investigator’s Observation: It was subsequently discovered that a permit to the new installation was not obtained. A permit and approved inspections are required.

Respondent shall obtain an [sic] permit and pass all inspections. Respondent shall provide the approved/passed final inspection report.

Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

The Directive included many items not requiring correction because “an insurance claim was filed against Respondent insurance and an initial payout was made. Corrections/remedies are now between Complainant’s and the Insurance. It is suggested that Complainant’s new Contractor filed a supplemental claim with the insurance company. Outside Registrar’s Jurisdiction.”

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent worked on obtaining a business license and building permit in the City of St. Johns. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Allison was notified that the building permit had not been issued yet.

On or about February 20, 2025, the City of St. Johns issued a business license to Respondent. In addition, on that same day, the City of St. Johns sent a letter to Respondent that stated in part, “On February 18th, we received a plan/design review application from your company for an HVAC install. . . . Please be advised that we cannot issue a building permit for this project until the issues with the [Registrar] are resolved.”

Investigator Allison was apprised of the City of St. Johns’ February 20, 2025, letter and reached out to the building department. Investigator Allison informed the building department that the complaint was only about Respondent obtaining a permit.

On March 6, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about March 24, 2025, the City of St. Johns issued Respondent a building permit.

On April 4, 2025, the City of St. Johns performed a second inspection on the HVAC unit and it passed.

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Allison testified that in order for Respondent to obtain a building permit, first they needed to obtain a business license which allows vendors to operate within the city. After the Respondent received a business license, then they could apply for a permit. Investigator Allison testified that no official extension to the directive deadline was done, however, he waited to refer the complaint to the legal department to issue a citation.

Investigator Allison further testified that after he spoke with the City of St. Johns’ building department, the building department began to move forward with Respondent’s license and permit but there were delays.

Shawn Thorn testified on behalf of Complainant that he and his wife, Norma Thorn came home, saw their ceiling in the kitchen sagging above the air handler due to water damage and that was when he installed wood planks to prevent the ceiling from falling down. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Thorn were advised by their homeowners’ insurance company that, because there was water damage, they need to look into remediating black mold and/or mildew. Mr. Thorn had to hire a third-party company, Elite Solutions, to deal with the remediation of the black mold/mildew. Elite Solutions discovered asbestos in the drywall. Mr. Thorn testified that when the asbestos work was being performed, he and Mrs. Thorn slept in their fifth wheel because the home had to be sealed off.

Tyler Myers testified as the current general manager and prior owner of Respondent, and has been in the business since 1995. Mr. Myers spoke about the rural communities Respondent served and how building departments in each town may be different than the other. Mr. Myers testified about whether it was common to need a permit to install a brand new central HVAC system to a home and he stated, “[e]very town or community is different. I will say where we’re at in Thatcher [AZ], up until this last year where they really got some inspectors in place and now its commonplace. So it’s changed here within the last year, didn’t used to be.”

Mikey Mariscal testified as the Operations Manager on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Mariscal handled the paperwork with the City of St. Johns and testified that he received the business permit rather quickly. Mr. Mariscal further testified that the delays were caused by “the complaint from [the Registrar] to the city of St. Johns where the city of St. Johns wouldn’t give us the complaint or the permit because of the complaint,” and additional delays occurred with the asbestos work being performed.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 16, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 265200 was first issued on June 4, 2010, and is Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no complaints resulting in 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 means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

In this case, there was overwhelming testimony on how in rural communities the building departments function differently. Mr. Myers testified how it became more commonplace for these towns to require a permit when a new central HVAC system is installed than was required in the past. This Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent should have diligently inquired with the City of St. Johns prior to beginning work on the project to see if a permit was required. As such, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete the project in accordance with the applicable building code in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded the applicable building code in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

Finally, Respondent worked immediately to obtain the permit and pass inspection, the evidence established that these actions were not completed prior to the Written Directive deadline, however, the delays in obtaining a business license and permit were not the fault of Respondent. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in 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 Respondent’s License No. ROC 265200 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar does not require Respondent to pay a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).

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, June 5, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Advanced Air Systems LLC

2250 W US Hwy 70

THATCHER, AZ 85552

[email redacted]

Norma Thorn

P.O. Box 1259

St. Johns, AZ 85936

[email redacted]

Chris Allison

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff