ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-00133-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Albert Maffei,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Great Day Improvements LLC,

License No. ROC 344176,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-00133-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 5, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Attorney Matthew Hayes on behalf of Complainant Albert Maffei with witness Claudia Maffei. Attorneys Creighton Dixon and Ed Hermes on behalf of Respondent Great Day Improvements LLC with witnesses Alan Norton and Eric Howarth. Investigator Charles Riddlehoover with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibit 11. Respondent Exhibits 9, 11 through 14, 16 and 17, 18 (Video dated March 28, 2025).

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Great Day Improvements LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 344176 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about January 27, 2024, Albert Maffei (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent to, among other things, install approximately 15 windows and a sliding door at his residential home located in Peoria, Arizona. The total amount of the contract was $34,341.00. Complainant made payments towards that total amount and, at the time of the hearing there remained an outstanding balance. The original installation took approximately three days for Respondent to complete.

On or about January 5, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Charles Riddlehoover. A jobsite inspection was scheduled on February 21, 2025, Respondent was not present. On March 13, 2025, Investigator Riddlehoover 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 3/28/2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Champion wrongfully installed retro-fit windows with uninsulated openings, we expected full-sized windows with no gaps.

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection we observed windows that appeared to small for the openings, gaps, miter joints poorly done, sharp edges, poorly applied sealant, improper use of screws to trim items, poorly assembled screens and lack of energy efficiency to the window encasement installed by the Respondent. Minor infiltration of moisture and dust is normal around doors and windows, especially during high winds and excessive rain. Excessive infiltration from improperly installed doors and windows or poorly fitted weather stripping is unacceptable. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 3 – 3-pane sliding glass door is much smaller than the opening and not reinforced well enough or insulated.

Investigator’s Observation: During our inspection it was observed that the sliding door installed by the respondent does not adequately fit the space and was poorly installed. It was noted the fixed in place panel moves and has a substantial gap. The 3 pane sliding glass door door did not appear to be energy efficient with insulation within the built out portions. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 4 – 3-pane sliding glass door has a crack/scratch in the left pane and is missing parts (key, plastic guards).

Investigator’s Observation: Upon inspection of the 3 pane sliding glass door it appears there are several missing trim and accessories. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

All errors in original.

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, no corrective work was performed, however, there were communications between the parties that were going back and forth. On March 18, 2025, an email exchange between Complainant and Investigator Riddlehoover read as such:

Investigator Riddlehoover at 1:44pm: [Respondent] has been trying to get ahold of you but has received no response. Can you please respond to this email and give the representative a call. [Attached to the bottom of this email was the Registrar’s Denial of Access verbiage.]

Complainant at 1:59pm: Why couldn’t they leave a message? Did they tell you who I will be talking to? We have not and will not refuse them access.

Investigator Riddlehoover at 2:05pm: They mentioned they’ve tried to reach out by phone and email several times. The Regional Manager Albert has emailed. Please contact him. Thank you. Regards.

Complainant at 2:21pm: They lie. I just called. It wasn’t even him.

On March 21, 2025, Respondent showed up at the house with three workers and Mrs. Maffei let them in the home. No corrective work was performed during this visit.

On March 28, 2025, Respondent showed up to the house, however, Complainant was not present at the home and there was no one available to let them into the residence.

After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Riddlehoover was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

On April 9, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

At the hearing, Respondent did not contest the three complaint items listed in the Written Directive and agreed they wanted to complete those items. However, Respondent argued that they were not provided access to perform this work on and prior to the deadline date.

Investigator Riddlehoover testified that he received an email/letter from Respondent on or about March 27, 2025, whereby Respondent requested a deadline extension which was denied. Investigator Riddlehoover testified that he “would have had no problem” with granting an extension if the request was made within the first few days of the issuance of the Written Directive. In this email/letter, Investigator Riddlehoover testified that Respondent again asserted that they tried to make repairs but there were communication issues between the parties.

Investigator Riddlehoover recalled that there were several instances prior to the deadline where Respondent wanted to come to the jobsite when Complainant was not available, but Complainant would offer other dates.

Complainant and Mrs. Maffei testified that they did not deny access to Respondent during the Written Directive period. Mrs. Maffei testified that prior to the Registrar complaint and after the original installation, due to their complaints about the work performance, Respondent came to the property approximately 13 times. During these visits, Mrs. Maffei testified that Respondent’s crew walked around but never performed any corrective work. Mrs. Maffei explained that Respondent came to the property during the following times with the named Respondent crew member: in July 2024 (“Tom”), August 2024 (“Eric”), September 2024 (“Brett”), October 2024 (“Jared”), and there were other occasions where a crew member visited and no corrective work was performed.

Additionally, Complainant and Mrs. Maffei testified that Respondent came to the house on March 21, 2025 around 2:00pm and there was a lot of talking and looking but no corrective work was performed during this visit. Mrs. Maffei testified that she received a text message on March 24, 2025, from “Jason” who requested her to send a few pictures of particular windows, she obliged, but heard nothing else from Jason. Mrs. Maffei testified that Respondent never sent her a list of items to be repaired nor a list of what materials needed to be ordered to complete the corrective work prior to the Written Directive deadline.

Al Norton, West Regional Manager, testified on behalf of Respondent that he emailed Complainant on March 27, 2025 at 2:20pm about coming to the property on March 28, 2025, the deadline date, to address the repairs. Mr. Norton testified that he did not receive a response from Complainant but sent a crew to the house on March 28, 2025, but did not gain access to the property.

Eric Howarth, Installation Manager, testified on behalf of Respondent that he was a part of the crew that went to the property on March 28, 2025, and they were unable to gain access to the house. As such, Mr. Howarth testified that they left a note on Complainant’s door which indicated they had come to the property to move forward on the repairs.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 5, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 344176 was first issued on April 1, 2023, and was 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.”

Respondent asserted the affirmative defense, denial of access. During the Directive period, a property owner must provide reasonable access to allow the contractor to fix their work as directed by the Registrar in a Written Directive. Property owners must make access available to contractors to make the required repairs and failure to provide reasonable access may result in the Registrar dismissing the complaint. The deadline in the written directive was issued to allow Respondent an opportunity to complete the job and correct any workmanship issues. In this case, the Tribunal does not find there to be a full denial of access given the events described above.

Respondent argued that they were ready to perform corrective work on March 28, 2025, the deadline date, without first confirming with Complainant that they would be home to allow access to the property. In addition, Respondent was at the property on March 21, 2025, and could have performed corrective work at that time but failed to do so. Furthermore, Respondent’s extension request came only one day or two prior to the deadline date and no persuasive evidence like phone records were presented. Therefore, Respondent did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a denial of access.

As such, 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 workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

In addition, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established 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 344176 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), 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, July 18, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Matthew G. Hayes

PLATT & WESTBY, P.C.

[email redacted]

Creighton P. Dixon

Snell & Wilmer LLP

[email redacted]

Charles Riddlehoover

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff