ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-00199-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Katherine O'Connor

COMPLAINANT,

Charles Albert Benghauser,

License No. ROC 199403

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-00199-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 3, 2025

APPEARANCES: Katherine O'Connor (Complainant) appeared on behalf of herself. Charles Albert Benghauser (Respondent) appeared on behalf of himself.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A, the Registrar’s administrative record, the hearing packet, 89 pages. Complainant’s Exhibits 1, 5, 6, and 8. Respondent’s Exhibits 6, 7, and 8.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On May 14, 2025, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) issued

a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on July 11, 2025, by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the

charges made in the Citation and Complaint.

Through the Citation, the Registrar alleges that Respondent may have

violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3)(specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code section R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).

4. The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.

5. On or about June 19, 2024, Complainant and Respondent entered into a contract, wherein Respondent would repair the floors in Complainant’s home for the amount of $7,400.00.

6. On July 15, 2024, Respondent started work.

7. On August 28, 2024, Respondent stopped work.

8. On or about January 8, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint from Complainant, alleging poor workmanship on the part of Respondent.

9. On January 14, 2025, the Registrar notified the parties by mail that a job-site inspection would occur on February 5, 2025.

10. On February 3, 2025, the Registrar notified the parties by mail that the job-site inspection was rescheduled for February 19, 2025 at 1:00 p.m., due to a scheduling conflict.

11. On February 19, 2025, Registrar Investigator James Diamond

(Investigator Diamond) conducted a jobsite inspection.

12. On April 4, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive directing Respondent to complete the following complaint item by appropriate means, no later than Thursday, April 24, 2025:

Complaint Item: 1 - We chose a brown stain. Charles could not get the stain to be even. He insisted we go with our existing color.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of inspection, the darker stain had been sanded off. There were a few locations that the dark color remained. The contract is silent regarding the stain color. It does appear however, that a darker stain was agreed up as there is random spots that confirm it. The respondent is to correct the stain color in an appropriate manner after the other corrections are made. Note- The complainant has repaired the base board and will be responsible for their removal and reinstallation.

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 - He had sanded our floors deeply, and applied the brown stain, which was a very poor result. He then re-sanded.

Investigator’s Observation: This item is informational and not actionable. He's been directed to correct the stain in Item 1.

Complaint Item: 3 - He then made us buy a different topcoat to be compatible with the new light stain. This cost was an additional $520.

Investigator’s Observation: This item is informational and not actionable. He's been directed to correct the stain in Item 1.

Complaint Item: 9 - As a result of 2 deep sandings, we have hundreds of nail heads now visible.

Investigator’s Observation: There are visible nail heads. The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 10 - We now have huge gaps in between the floor boards. The gaps are continuing to get larger and deeper. Investigator’s Observation: There are numerous excessive gaps present. The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner. Note: This does not include the guest bath as the complainant corrected this area.

Complaint Item: 14 - We have broken floor boards now. We also have deep circular gouges throughout.

Investigator’s Observation: The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

13. Respondent did not make the required corrections.

14. Respondent filed a timely response to the Citation issued in this matter.

15. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

16. A hearing was held on July 3, 2025.

17. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of herself. Respondent testified on behalf of himself. Investigator Diamond testified regarding his investigation of the complaint.

Testimony of Investigator Diamond

18. Investigator Diamond stated that he referred the case to the Registrar’s legal department before the Directive expired because Respondent, “desired to fight the Directive and fight the complaint and basically requested a citation on himself.” See Investigator Diamond’s testimony on the hearing recording at 2:00 to 3:00 minutes. Investigator Diamond also clarified that he was not aware that Respondent requested to inspect the work after receiving notice of the complaint and prior to the job-site inspection.

Testimony of Complainant

19. Respondent performed poor work in connection with the residential repair project. Respondent sent Complainant an email on April 17, 2025 requesting to perform touch up work on the corners. Complainant believed that Respondent did not understand that the Directive required him to repair four items including the correction of the stain color, the visible nail heads, the gaps, and the broken floor boards. Complainant stated that after receiving the email and before the Directive expired, she contacted the Registrar who informed her that she was not obligated to provide Respondent with any time to make repairs.

20. Complainant also stated that Respondent sent her an email on April 20, 2025 asking to come and make repairs. Complaint stated that she responded that she would like to meet with Respondent and that she was going on vacation. However, Complainant did not hear back from Respondent.

Testimony of Respondent

21. Respondent argued that the Citation should not have been issued because the he was not provided with the opportunity to inspect the work as required under Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1155(D). However, Respondent provided no written or testimonial evidence that he requested or attempted to inspect the work within the 15-day time period. Respondent submitted Exhibit 6, a copy of an email message to Investigator Diamond expressing that he had tried to make arrangements to go to Complainant’s home but she did not respond. However, the document does not include a respond from Investigator Diamond.

22. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on July 11, 2025. Respondent’s license was first issued on September 5, 2004, and has been voluntarily cancelled. Such prior License record also shows that there is one open complaint against Respondent’s license. Such prior License record shows that the Registrar has not imposed discipline upon Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1101 et seq.

Respondent’s voluntary cancellation of its license does not deprive

Complainant of her right to prosecute her complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(C).

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section

41-1092.07(G) (2); Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B) (1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses and factors in mitigation of the penalty by the same evidentiary standard. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952).

4. “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).

5. Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Complainant failed to provide him with an opportunity to inspect the work within fifteen days after receiving a written notice from the registrar, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1155(D)(1). Respondent provided no testimonial or written evidence to establish that after receiving noticed of the complaint, he requested to inspect the work before the job-site inspection.

6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

7. The evidence presented at hearing shows that Complainant informed Respondent that she wanted to meet with him after he inquired about making repairs, Respondent failed to respond.

8. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 license number 199403 that was issued to Charles Albert Benghauser for two days. 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. section 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. section 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, July 11, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Charles Albert Benghauser

[email redacted]

Katherine O'Connor

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff