ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-01698-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-30
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
R W C Building Products
COMPLAINANT
v.
Craven Construction LLC License No. ROC 311721 and 315169
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-01698-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 6, 2025 with the record held open until June 9, 2025, to afford Complainant the opportunity to submit additional evidence.
APPEARANCES: Mark Wogernese appeared on behalf of R W C Building Products (hereinafter “Complainant”). No one appeared on behalf of Craven Construction LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibit A.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Complainant and Respondent entered into a contract wherein Complainant would deliver materials to Respondent in connection with Respondent’s operations as a general contractor.
2. From April 2024 to July 2024, Complainant delivered materials to Respondent, as promised.
3. Complainant issued invoices to Respondent for the materials delivered from April 2024 to July 2024. However Respondent has failed to pay a total of $374,351.87 for the materials delivered.
4. On or about February 14, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “ROC” or “Registrar”) alleging that Respondent failed to pay for materials provided to Respondent.
5. On March 27, 2025, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license. Through the Citation, the ROC alleged that Respondent may have violated Arizona Revised Statutes (hereinafter “A.R.S.”) §32-1154(A)(10).
6. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation that provided as follows:
Good Afternoon,
We received the citation filed and are in the process of working to resolve the matter of payment. We unfortunately got behind on payments and are working to gather funds from the builder as well as projects going forward to make payments toward the balance. If our license is revoked in this matter, we are not able to continue to work to provide for our employees and vendors. We plan to make this right with RWC Builders and understand the seriousness of this complaint. We would like an opportunity to try and work this out with the complainant.
Thank you,
Craven Construction
602-399-4914
7. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
8. On April 18, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on
Complainant’s complaint, setting a hearing on June 6, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. The Registrar sent a copy of the Notice of Hearing via USPS first class mail to Respondent at its address of record. The Registrar also sent a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its email address on record with the Registrar.
9. A hearing was held on June 6, 2025.
10. At hearing, Respondent’s credit manager, Mark Wogernese, testified on behalf of Complainant.
11. Mr. Wogernese explained that the invoices reflected on the balance sheet beginning with “FC” show the finance charges. The remaining item on the balance sheet are invoices for the materials delivered to Respondent. Respondent failed to pay the invoices.
12. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that $37,480.55 of the balance reflected in Exhibit A is for finance charges alone. The total outstanding balance, less finance charges, is $336,881.47.
13. Respondent did not request to appear telephonically at the duly noticed
continued hearing. Although the beginning of the hearing was delayed 21 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney and did not contact Office of Administrative Hearings to request another continuance or that the time for the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent presented no evidence to defend its license.
14. Respondent’s failure to appear at the hearing and the large amount of the debt are also considered as factors in aggravation of the penalty.
15. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website.
According to the information available on the website on June 30, 2025, license number 311721 was issued to Respondent on February 21, 2017 and is suspended. Such prior License record also reflects that there is one open complaint against license number 311721 license and two complaints that resulted in discipline against Respondent’s license number 311721. Such prior License record also shows that license number 315169 was issued to Respondent on July 31, 2017 and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is one open complaint against license number 315169 and one complaint that has resulted in discipline against license number 315169.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
The suspended status of license number 311721 held by Respondent does
not deprive Complainant of its right to prosecute the Complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice.” A.R.S. § 1-211(B).
The purpose of the ROC’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
9. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license “[f]ailure by a licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.”
10. Payment for “[s]ervices rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor” does not include interest, finance charges, lien charges, or other charges that are based solely on contract terms.
11. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
12. Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDed order
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the ROC suspend license numbers 311721 and 315169 held by Craven Construction LLC, until it has provided to the ROC, and the ROC has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $336,881.47 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the ROC receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant in certified funds, the ROC may close the Complaint in Case No. 2025A-01698.
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 30, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
R W C Building Products
[email redacted]
Craven Construction LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff