ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-01883-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Michael Hayes,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Markosian, LLC

DBA: Spruce View Contracting,

License No. ROC 349823,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-01883-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 11, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Michael Hayes appeared on his own behalf. Caleb Markosian appeared on behalf of Respondent Markosian, LLC, doing business as Spruce View Contracting, with co-owner Daniel Ftaggs. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Daniel Otero appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Markosian, LLC, doing business as Spruce View Contracting (“Respondent”), is the holder of License Number 349823 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Caleb John Markosian is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Member.

On or about November 15, 2023, Michael Hayes (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install a new metal roof at a home Complainant purchased for his son to reside in. Complainant paid $10,000.00 to Respondent for Respondent to purchase the materials for the project.

On or about February 24, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment of the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Daniel Otero. After a March 19, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Otero issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated March 21, 2025, 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 Monday, April 7, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: - Cashed $10,000 check and work never started.

Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been verified. During the jobsite inspection, it was confirmed the Respondent has not performed any work since the contract was agreed upon, no materials delivered or left on site. While unforeseen conditions can arise in construction, the project's timeline has exceeded the acceptable standards within the industry. The Respondent shall perform the work promptly. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes, and manufactures installation instructions.

All errors in original.

After the April 7, 2025 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Otero ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive. Thereafter, Investigator Otero forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-109, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearing, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Otero testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes and the Written Directive. Investigator Otero’s Jobsite Inspection Notes state the following:

Jobsite General Notes:

I arrived at the complainant’s residence at the scheduled time. Entering the property and exiting my truck, we proceeded to inspect the items on the complaint list in question. As we looked at the house from a distance it was indicated to me the reason for the project initiation to remove the old metal roof and install a new shingle roof, this was due to the fact that the 3 skylights and the chimney on the roof had been leaking during storms. Both parties agreed to the amount and scope of work with materials. Deposit was paid and the Respondent failed to uphold their end of the agreement and stopped all communication. Since then the Respondent has removed their website, phone numbers and non-responsive to emails they have been unable to correspond with.

All errors in original.

Investigator Otero testified that the charge of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-109, was incorrectly cited, and that Respondent should have been cited with A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

Complainant agreed with Investigator Otero’s testimony. Complainant testified that he paid for the work to be performed, Respondent accepted payment, did not provide any materials or perform any work, paid other bills with the funds received, and then went out of business.

Mr. Markosian did not dispute any of Investigator Otero’s testimony or his findings or Complainant’s testimony. Mr. Markosian did not dispute the Registrar’s charges. Mr. Markosian acknowledged contracting to perform the roof replacement, accepting the monies paid by Complainant, depositing the funds into Respondent’s business account, and using those funds “for other things.”

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 25, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 349823 was first issued on January 24, 2024, and is revoked. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, three complaints resulting in discipline, and one resolved/settled complaint 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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(D), “[t]he expiration, cancellation, suspension or revocation of a license by operation of law or by decision and order of the registrar or a court of law or the voluntary surrender of a license by a licensee does not deprive the registrar of jurisdiction to proceed with any investigation of or action or disciplinary proceeding against such a licensee, or to render a decision suspending or revoking such a license, or denying the renewal or right of renewal of such a license.”

The evidence established that Respondent abandoned the parties’ contract. Respondent contracted to install a new metal roof, accepted a deposit for such work, and did not perform any work. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence established that by failing to install the roof, Respondent departed from plans or specifications in a material respect that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).

The evidence did not establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-109, as this code provision was incorrectly charged and is inapplicable to the instant matter.

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the project for the agreed upon contract price. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and acknowledged such. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License Number 349823.

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 25, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Markosian, LLC

DBA: Spruce View Contracting

[email redacted]

Michael Hayes

[email redacted]

Daniel Otero

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff