ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2025A-01904-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

William Baker Martin,

COMPLAINANT

MINIMAL CONSTRUCTION LLC,

License No. ROC 334200,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-01904-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 26, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: William Martin

Respondent: Alex Diamonte

Travis Minore

Registrar of Contractors: Lisa Melton, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

Complainant Exhibit 1.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Minimal Construction (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 334200 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 28, 2021.

On or about February 4, 2025, William Martin’s (Complainant) neighbor had work done on his property by Respondent. While working on the neighbor’s project, Respondent damaged Complainant’s wall.

On or about February 21, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Lisa Melton, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on March 14, 2025, scheduling the inspection for April 9, 2025.

Investigator Melton conducted the jobsite inspection on April 9, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Melton issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on May 1, 2025 that provided as follows:

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

Compliance Item 1: On February 4th 2025 I was notified by my neighbor that a section of my wall located inside my property line had been damaged by a workman. I was surprised to find that a 12 foot section of block wall have been replaced with material of a different style, color and size And the workmanship was extremely poor. This attempt at repairing the wall was done without my knowledge or consent. On February the 13th 2025 I met with Scott Frankson representing minimal living concepts. I told Mr. Frankson that I was entitled to have bloc of similar style and color. The only thing he offered to do was clean up the mortar. I am asking for the ROC’s help and resolving this matter.

Investigator’s Observation:

• Respondent appeared at jobsite inspection (JSI) and acknowledged that during their performance of work at the home of Complainant’s neighbor the Complainant’s wall had been damaged and subsequently repaired by Respondent.

• The repair includes the replacement of a section of fence from column to column.

• The subject work is located entirely behind a large shed and therefore not readily visible. Complainant only became aware of the damage/repair when the neighbor informed him about it after the Respondent had replaced the section of wall.

• At this time, the work is poor and messy with excess mortar on wall and at base, as well as, areas of missing mortar.

• Additionally, the replacement block does not appear to be like for like or matched as closely as possible. The Registrar does not require a Respondent to replace an entire fence to address correction when original materials are no longer available, however, the Registrar does require that corrective work be performed with materials that match the original as closely as possible. Replacement block is not like for like in that the original block is interlocking, replacement is not. Replacement block is not the same size, however, it appears that the same size is not available. Replacement block is of a color that Complainant feels is not the closest match possible and provided evidence of this at the JSI.

• While color selection is subjective, had the Respondent acted in a professional manner and contacted the complaint regarding the damage to the shared wall and their intended correction, the parties would have had the opportunity to determine the appropriate block. Respondent should correct the damage they caused by appropriate methods in accordance with industry and workmanship standards. Utilizing the appropriate materials (like for like block matched as closely as possible to existing) for the corrective work.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Melton of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2025.

On May 16, 2025, Complainant sent an email to Investigator Melton documenting his block selection. Investigator Melton copied that email to all parties on the same day.

On May 20, 2025, Respondent replied to all parties asserting the matter was being worked on and it had spoken with Complainant to “set up” the repairs.

On May 27, 2025, Respondent sent an email to Complainant and Investigator Melton advising that the Complainant’s block selection had been sent to the contractor who would complete the correction before the compliance period expired.

On May 28, 2025, Respondent sent an email to Complainant and copied Investigator Melton, advising that the contractor, Metro Builders, was available to complete the correction repairs on June 1, 2025. Respondent asked Complainant to confirm whether Complainant was also available on the proposed date.

On June 2, 2025, Investigator Melton sent an email to Respondent requesting a status update on whether the repair had been completed or if an extension was required.

On June 9, 2025, Respondent informed Investigator Melton that the selection provided by Complainant was a discontinued product and a different product would need to be chosen. As such, no corrective work had been performed on the project.

On June 9, 2025, in reply to Respondent’s email, Investigator Melton asked Respondent if it had contacted Complainant. Respondent did not reply.

On June 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on June 24, 2025. Respondent’s Answer admitted that a portion of Complainant’s wall was damaged and rebuilt using block that did not match the original and rest of the wall. Respondent asserted that Complainant’s choice of replacement block was no longer available in size of the existing wall blocks and Respondent could not take corrective action until Complainant chose a different option.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On July 16, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for August 26, 2025.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on August 26, 2025.

Investigator Melton testified in support of her jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, all communications received during and after the compliance period, and the Citation.

Complainant testified that on February 13, 2025, he met with Respondent and was informed that the exact matching block was not available as a 10-inch block was no longer manufactured. On or about February 15, 2025, two individuals representing Respondent arrived to clean mortar. Complainant did not allow the work to be completed as he did not want to convey “acceptance” of mortar cleaning as the resolution. On May 16, 2025, Complainant selected and confirmed availability of the block he wished to have used.

Respondent testified it was a miscommunication on its part and an internal issue with Respondent’s representative for this project.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 11, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 334200 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints 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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The preponderance of the evidence 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 suspend for one business day Respondent’s License No. 334200.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, September 15, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

William Baker Martin

[email redacted]

MINIMAL CONSTRUCTION LLC

[email redacted]

Lisa Melton

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff