ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02105-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Black Pearl Construction LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

AZ Fence Line Co LLC

DBA: Az Fence Line Co,

License No. ROC 356164,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-02105-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 29, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Black Pearl Construction LLC was represented by Lisa I. Streu. Darren Underwood appeared on behalf of Respondent AZ Fence Line Co LLC. Investigator Aaron King appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s exhibits 1-9 and Respondent’s exhibit A were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

AZ Fence Line Co LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 356164 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 19, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to build a spiral staircase a home for which Complainant was the general contractor.

On or about March 2, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Aaron King. The jobsite inspection was performed on May 7, 2025.

Investigator King then issued a Written Directive on or about May 8, 2025, which provided in pertinent part 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, May 26th, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 2- staircase entry positing is against wall not what client requested

Investigator’s Observation: The complaint states that the entry positioning of the installed staircase is against the wall and not what the client requested. During the inspection and investigation, it was confirmed that the Respondent fabricated and installed the stairs per instructions provided by Tyler, the supervisor representing the homeowner’s contractor. The Respondent submitted text communications dated December 27, 2024, in which they notified the supervisor that code-compliant stairs would require 91⁄8-inch risers and warned that reducing the riser height to 6 or 7 inches would result in headroom clearance violations and a noncompliant installation. Despite this, the supervisor authorized the Respondent to proceed with a 7-inch riser configuration, which altered the stairway’s geometry and entry point. Although consent was given by the homeowner’s representative, this does not absolve the Respondent of their statutory obligation as a licensed contractor to perform work in accordance with applicable building codes. Per Section R311.7.2 of the 2018 International Residential Code (IRC), which is adopted in Arizona, stairways must maintain a minimum headroom clearance of 6 feet 8 inches (80 inches) measured vertically from the tread nosing. Inspection failure shown to me by the Complainant, verified that this minimum was not achieved. Regardless of whether a customer or representative requests work that does not meet code, licensed contractors are required to decline or correct such work—not proceed with full knowledge of the violation. Proceeding with an installation that knowingly fails to meet code requirements constitutes a serious departure from acceptable practice. Under Arizona statutes, knowingly constructing a feature that violates building code and creates a foreseeable risk of inspection failure is a workmanship violation regardless of whether the Respondent communicated this, and was advised to continue to build it and install it anyway. The liability lays with the Respondent, and the Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154(A)(6), knowingly constructing a noncompliant structure in violation of applicable building codes.

Complaint Item: 3- top rail to narrow at stucco bent handrail out of level to try and fill gaps between stucco

Investigator’s Observation: The complaint states that the top rail of the installed staircase is too narrow and that the handrail was bent out of level in an attempt to close gaps between the railing and the adjacent stucco wall. During the inspection, this condition was verified. The Respondent installed the railing in a way that resulted in visible misalignment between the handrail components and the stucco opening, with cosmetic inconsistencies and deformation of the rail section near the wall. The Respondent has indicated that the deviation was due in part to irregularities in the wall opening, and inspection confirmed a dimensional difference of approximately 1⁄4 inch between the top and bottom width of the stucco opening. However, this variance is minimal and does not reasonably account for the degree of offset, bending, or visual misalignment observed at the connection points. The overall condition of the installed railing assembly reflects a lack of precision and failure to adjust the installation to maintain a clean, professional connection with the existing structure. According to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors Workmanship Standards (June 2009), Section II.C.6, interior and exterior finish components must be installed in a manner that is both complete and visually professional. Additionally, because the Respondent proceeded with the installation knowing it would not meet code-compliant headroom requirements and introduced cosmetic and structural deficiencies at the interface with the home’s exterior, the work is deemed noncompliant. The minor irregularity in the wall opening does not justify the resulting workmanship flaws. As such, the installation must be corrected to meet both code and industry standards. This knowingly substandard construction is a violation under Arizona statutes. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154(A)(6), knowingly constructing a noncompliant structure in violation of applicable building codes and failing to meet professional workmanship standards....

After several extensions on the Directive, the last one allowing Respondent until June 30, 2025 to complete the Directive, Investigator King issued his compliance notes, stating in pertinent part:

No inspection took place. Despite having 62 days in the directive period through a collection of extensions, no work was completed and no settlement was attained. With no work done, there was nothing to inspect for being in compliance. The complaint has been forwarded to the next step in the process....

On July 11, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(6), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about July 11, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about July 21, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on August 9, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and e-mail address of record.

After a continuance, the hearing was held on August 11, 2025.

At hearing, Investigator King testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator King testified that Respondent was not licensed to construct the spiral staircase and materially misrepresented the same to Complainant. Because of this, the project was delayed as the staircase was not up to code and the homeowner’s wall was damaged.

James Page testified on behalf of Complainant. Mr. Page testified that after the Directive was issued, the parties agreed that Respondent would pay Complainant $3,400.00. Mr. Page testified however, that his bank would not honor the check as it could not find the account number. Further, there was discussion between the parties that Mr. Underwood would hand deliver a cashier’s check to resolve the matter, but that did not materialize.

Mr. Underwood testified that technically he was not even licensed when Complainant requested a bid on the project. Further, he testified that he had a valid bank account as the checks written before and after the one to Complainant were accepted without incident.

As to his work history, Mr. Underwood testified that he started in 2021 as a “mom and pop shop” doing small repairs under $1,000.00 with his in-laws. Mr. Underwood testified that in 2022 and 2023 he did accept some jobs greater than $1,000.00. Mr. Underwood also testified that his brother-in-law does grading work and that he refers clients to Cotto Electric for electrical work.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 12, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 356164 was first issued on December 17, 2024.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “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).

The preponderance of the evidence established that Mr. Underwood was familiar enough with the licensing statutes to know that he was not licensed to not enter into the contract with Complainant, and also that he was contracting beyond the scope of its license. Thus, Mr. Underwood materially misrepresented his licensure status. Further, because of this, there was injury to the homeowner due to the delay of the project and damage sustained to the wall. Therefore the tribunal finds a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(6).

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent reach a settlement with Complainant. It was clear from the testimony that even if it was a bank error in not accepting the check, Mr. Underwood had ample opportunity to correct the same and failed to do so. 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 suspend Respondent’s License No. 356164 for a period of three days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $400.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 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 A.R.S. § 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, September 12, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Lisa I Streu

[email redacted]

AZ Fence Line Co LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff