ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-01736-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RM Interiors & Design Inc

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Micela Properties Inc

License No. ROC 202053

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-01736-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 11, 2025

APPEARANCES: Dean Clouse, Esq. appeared on behalf of RM Interiors & Design Inc (hereinafter “Complainant”). Luigi Micela appeared on behalf of Micela Properties Inc. (hereinafter “Respondent”)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 48 and 51 through 56.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant and Respondent entered into a construction agreement wherein Complainant agreed to provide materials and labor to Lot 50, for the amount of $406,900.88.

2. Complainant issued an invoice in the amount of $101,346.36 for the balance Complainant believed that it was owed for the project.

3. Respondent did not pay the invoice in the amount of $101,346.36.00.

4. On February 20, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar” or “ROC”) alleging that Respondent failed to pay an invoice with a balance of $101,346.36 for Lot 50.

5. On April 30, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s license alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statues § 32-1154 (A)(10).

6. Respondent filed a timely response to the Citation.

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

8. A hearing was held on June 11, 2025. At hearing, Mark Wagner and Steve Murray testified on behalf of Complainant. Luigi Micela testified on behalf of Respondent.

Testimony of Mark Wagner

9. Mr. Wagner is the owner and president of Complainant. Mr. Wagner never visited the job-site for Lot 50. Mr. Wagner stated that Respondent never provided Complainant with a punch list. Mr. Wagner stated that Complainant entered into a contract with Respondent wherein Complainant agreed to provide labor and the majority of the materials required for the project. Steve Murray was the project manager for the job. Mr. Wagner stated that Complainant completed the job at Lot 50.

Testimony of Steve Murray

10. Mr. Murray was Complainant’s project manager the Lot 50 project.

Mr. Murray stated that Complainant sent invoices to Respondent and never received a written objection from Respondent. Mr. Murray testified that Complainant completed the wall tile and floors were completed in the powder bathroom, the driveway, the walk deck, the floors in the main area of the house, shower wile tile, master bathroom tile, main floor tile and the exterior thresholds, the fire place, and the vanity splash. In support of its case, Complainant submitted Exhibits 5 through 48 into evidence.

Testimony of Luigi Micela

11. Mr. Micela explained that Complainant used an amount of Respondent’s materials that exceeded the amount agreed upon in the contract.

Mr. Micela stated that Complainant quit the job before it was finished and failed to install of the thresholds throughout the house. Mr. Micela stated that there were leaks in the shower where the shower heads were installed. Mr. Micela stated that the buildup supports pierced through the piping in the home and Respondent had to repair the supports. Mr. Micela also stated that the baseboards had to be redone. Mr. Micela stated that 30% of the job was not completed. Mr. Micela stated that Respondent had to pay another contractor to complete the job.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

2. 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. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

3. 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).

4. 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.")

5. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to

promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

6. The purpose of the Registrar’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).

7. Ariz. Rev. Stat section 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.

8. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant provided sufficient written and testimonial evidence to establish that payment in the amount of $101,346.36 became due for the material and labor that Complainant provided to Lot 50. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to pay Complainant the balance of $101,346.36. Although Respondent contended that Complainant failed to complete the job and performed poor work, Respondent did not provide any supporting written documentation to support its position.

9. Accordingly, Complainant has met its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A) (10) as alleged

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the ROC suspend license number 202053 held by Micela Properties Inc, until it has provided to the ROC, and the ROC has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $101,346.36 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-01736.

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 1, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Dean W. Clouse, Esq.

Dean W. Clouse, PLC

[email redacted]

RM Interiors & Design Inc.

[email redacted]

Micela Properties Inc

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff