ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02106-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Mona Madani,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

A.F.O.N. Builder, LLC,

License No. ROC 325803,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-02106-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 4, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Mona Madani appeared on her own behalf. Amado Olivarria appeared on behalf of Respondent A.F.O.N. Builder, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Arlo Houston appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice Taken of Agency Record; Complainant Mona Madani’s Exhibits 10, 11, 40, and 60

FINDINGS OF FACT

A.F.O.N. Builder, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 325803 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Amado Olivarria is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Member.

In or about February 2024, Mona Madani (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to remodel Complainant’s home and to construct an addition to the home. The parties did not have a written contract. The scope of work included, but was not limited to, demolition, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, concrete, insulation, stucco, painting, and roofing.

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

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Arlo Houston. Investigator Houston attempted to conduct a Jobsite Inspection on April 21, 2025. However, Investigator Houston was unable to complete the Jobsite Inspection because Complainant called the Sheriff’s office regarding Respondent, who left the premises prior to the commencement of the Jobsite Inspection, and thereafter, Complainant “disengaged” from the Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Houston’s Jobsite Inspection Notes state the following in pertinent part:

Upon inspection at the initial JSI the respondent was not present as the complainant had called the Pima County Sheriff’s Dept. (PCSD) on the respondent and alleged fraud by the respondent. The PCSD responded during the JSI and the JSI was cut short without being able to visually inspect all allegations at the initial JSI as the complainant decided to disengage from the scheduled JSI to file a report with PCSD.

Thereafter, Complainant filed an Addendum to the Complaint.

On May 13, 2025, Investigator Houston conducted a Jobsite Inspection that incorporated the Addendum items of Complaint. Gilberto Olivarria was designated by Respondent to be present for this Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Houston issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated May 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 Friday, June 13, 2025.

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

The Respondents invoices (contracts) do not include all of the items of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1158. The Respondent is required to submit an updated version of a contract template for future use to the Registrar that complies with the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1158.

The Respondent is to obtain the required building permit(s) from

Pima County Development Services (PCDS) for the remodeling activities performed by the Respondent, correct work as required by

PCDS, and provide record of passed inspections to the Registrar.

If the Respondent uses subcontractors for any work at the Complainants property the subcontractors must be appropriately licensed by the Registrar.

Complaint Item: 5 - No doors in entire house although paid upfront to

Amado Olivarria: failure to pay subcontractor with El Roble carpentry (unlicensed) their balance of $17k to release our doors. What are we supposed to do about this ?

Investigator’s Observation: Verified for remaining closet and pantry door not being installed. Not verified for money amount as that part of this item represents a disputed money amount which the Registrar lacks the authority and jurisdiction to resolve. Upon inspection at the addendum JSI conducted on 5/13/2025 I observed that the complainant already much of the work performed by others for this item as they had many doors installed by separately hired contractors. However, there were closet doors and a pantry door which were not yet installed by the respondent.

Additionally, subcontracted work for this item by unlicensed entity/individual represents aiding and abetting by the respondent

Complaint Item: 9 - the tile is extremely crooked/ misaligned in a corner area in one of the bathrooms

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

Upon inspection at this JSI I observed for:

-area of crooked/misaligned glass tile in the bathroom

-work performed for this item by unlicensed entity/individual represents aiding and abetting by the respondent

Complaint Item: 10 - failure to obtain proper permits as required under AZ law for the work below ARS 32-1154 (A)(2)

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

The remodeling activity/work at the property are all building permit required activities which respondent did not obtain building permits for before performing work.

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS

Subcontracting with and use of unlicensed HVAC entity/individual for remodeling activities at property.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 1 - Plumbing issues as a result of 2nd plumber because he adamantly refused to pay the 1st whom we had agreed to their bid , no running water

Investigator’s Observation: Not verified.

Upon inspection at the JSI conducted on 4/21/2025 I was unable to visually inspect for this allegation item as the complainant's designated representative and separately hired contractor (hired by complainant) Trinidad Valenzuela advised that issues related to this allegation had been corrected by him and there was now running water in the house.

Use of the separately hired contractor by the complainant represents a modification to work performed by respondent and, as a result, the Registrar loses continuing jurisdiction over the respondent's work due to the modification by others.

Complaint Item: 2 - Electrical (as depicted in photos and far more) open conductors and wires behind the drywalls and the unlicensed subcontractor is demanding his 4k today on a phone call (the same unlicensed contractor from Mexico whose number I furnished for you in a previous email .

Investigator’s Observation: Not verified.

Upon inspection at the JSI conducted on 4/21/2025 I was unable to visually inspect for this allegation item as the complainant's designated representative and separately hired contractor (hired by complainant) Trinidad Valenzuela advised that issues related to this allegation had been corrected by another separately hired contractor (hired by complainant).

Use of the separately hired contractor by the complainant represents a modification to work performed by respondent and, as a result, the Registrar loses continuing jurisdiction over the respondent's work due to the modification by others. This item also contains a disputed money amount which the Registrar lacks the authority and jurisdiction to resolve.

Complaint Item: 3 - Uneven walls visibly seen in particular in the laundry room (crooked)

Investigator’s Observation: Not verified.

Upon inspection at the AJSI conducted on 5/13/2025 I observed for others working in this area (separately hired by complainant). The respondent's representative said they had not done any drywall work in the laundry room.

There is no supporting evidence provided by the complainant to support this allegation and they had others completing work for this item in the area of alleged poor work at the time of the jobsite inspection. Use of the separately hired contractor by the complainant represents a modification to work performed by respondent and, as a result, the Registrar loses continuing jurisdiction over the respondent's work due to the modification by others.

Complaint Item: 4 - Roofing / stucco holes resulting in leaks more apparent when it rained and visible from exterior of home

Investigator’s Observation: Not verified.

Upon inspection at the AJSI conducted on 5/13/2025 I was unable to visually inspect for this allegation item as the complainant advised they had work performed by separately hired contractors to correct this item prior the jobsite inspection. Use of the separately hired contractor by the complainant represents a modification to work performed by respondent and, as a result, the Registrar loses continuing jurisdiction over the respondent's work due to the modification by others.

Complaint Item: 6 - No Paint service rendered by Amado as the company off the bid he used ( Paint Kings) suggested I contact and report to authorities for blatant fraud . He took 26k without rendering any service and sent a friend (unlicensed and no ROC#) to request and demand $14k on the day he promised to initiate the paint project. Paint kings stated there is no record of any scheduled paint at our property address. Lawyer stated yesterday it's Blatant fraud.

Investigator’s Observation: Not verified for the paint allegation. Not verified for allegation for fraud as the intent of the respondent to complete or not complete work is not known. Upon inspection at the AJSI conducted on 5/13/2025 I was unable to visually inspect for this allegation item as the complainant had work performed by separately hired contractors to correct this item prior the jobsite inspection. Use of the separately hired contractor by the complainant represents a modification to work performed by respondent and, as a result, the Registrar loses continuing jurisdiction over the respondent's work due to the modification by others. This item also contains a disputed money amount which the Registrar lacks the authority and jurisdiction to resolve.

Complaint Item: 7 - He abandoned the project many months ago, but was trying to extort us for more money. He also stole from our property and has yet to return our garage door opener and gate keys after multiple Requests made.

Investigator’s Observation: Not verified.

I am unable to determine if the respondent abandoned work at the subject property as prior to the JSI's the complainant had much of the work for the allegations in the complaint corrected by others. The complainant said they did not stop work or terminate the respondent yet had others completing work even at the time of the JSI’s. The respondent said they did not quit or stop work and at the addendum JSI on 5/13/2025 the respondent's representative said they were still willing to complete work. The Registrar is limited to the conditions present when a jobsite inspection is conducted to either verify for or not verify for allegations in a complaint. Due to the modification and/or completion of work by others it is difficult if not impossible to verify for the allegation of abandonment as the Registrar cannot direct a contractor to complete work that the complainant has elected to have completed by others. Use of the separately hired contractor(s) by the complainant represents a modification to work performed by respondent and, as a result, the Registrar loses continuing jurisdiction over the respondent's work due to the modification by others.

Complaint Item: 8 - Furthermore, as witnessed by an employee from Pella screwed up my front door installing it incorrectly and additional windows/glass doors.

Investigator’s Observation: Not verified.

Upon inspection at the AJSI conducted on 5/13/2025 I was unable to visually inspect for this allegation item as the complainant had work performed by others to correct this item prior the jobsite inspection.

Use of the separately hired contractor by the complainant represents a modification to work performed by respondent and, as a result, the Registrar loses continuing jurisdiction over the respondent's work due to the modification by others.

Complaint Item: 11 - failure to disclose insurance information (A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(14))

Investigator’s Observation: Not verified.

This is a statement by complainant and does not contain a workmanship related allegation to observe and report on. The complainant's statutory reference does not pertain to the allegation as 32- 1154(A)(14) is: Acting in the capacity of a contractor under any license issued under this chapter in a name other than as set forth on the license.

All errors and emphasis in original.

On May 22, 2025, Investigator Houston issued an Amended Written Directive that amended the wording of Compliant Item Number 5 to the following:

Complaint Item: 5 - No doors in entire house although paid upfront to

Amado Olivarria: failure to pay subcontractor with El Roble carpentry (unlicensed) their balance of $17k to release our doors. What are we supposed to do about this ?

Investigator’s Observation: Verified for remaining doors not being installed - not including the doors installed by others observed for at the addendum jobsite inspection. Not verified for money amount as that part of this item represents a disputed money amount which the Registrar lacks the authority and jurisdiction to resolve.

Upon inspection at the addendum JSI conducted on 5/13/2025 I observed that the complainant already had much of the work performed by others for this item as they had many doors installed by separately hired contractors. However, there were remaining locations in which doors were not yet installed by the respondent. Additionally, subcontracted work for this item by unlicensed entity/individual represents aiding and abetting by the respondent

After the June 13, 2025 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Houston ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive. Thereafter, Investigator Houston 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)(2)(b), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely, A.R.S. § 32-1158, 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 Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Houston testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection notes and the Written Directives. Investigator Houston testified that Respondent admitted to hiring unlicensed contractors for HVAC, plumbing, electrical, doors, and tile. Investigator Houston testified that the permit that was obtained for the project was only for a small bedroom addition, and therefore, was not the proper permit for the expanded scope of Respondent’s work.

Investigator Houston explained that he did not verify certain items of Complaint because Complainant modified the work performed by Respondent by hiring others to correct and/or complete those items. Consequently, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2), the Registrar cannot issue a Citation because Respondent’s work was modified by others.

Investigator Houston testified that he did not recall any communications from Respondent alleging a denial of access by Complainant, and if a denial of access had been alleged by Respondent, he would have extended the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, and would have noted such allegation.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Houston’s testimony, and reiterated that Respondent utilized unlicensed contractors for the project. Complainant explained that when she initially hired Respondent, the scope of the project was smaller, and it was subsequently expanded, thereby requiring additional permitting. Complainant testified regarding Respondent’s poor workmanship in regard to the tile and stucco, and the fact that Respondent failed to install doors. Complainant testified that Respondent did not communicate with her during the period of the Written Directive and no corrective action was taken.

Mr. Olivarria testified that he obtained the permits for the addition. Mr. Olivarria admitted that Respondent utilized unlicensed contractors on the project, specifically for stucco, tile, and door installation. Mr. Olivarria acknowledged not having a written contract for the project. Mr. Olivarria acknowledged that some of the doors are missing from the jobsite. Mr. Olivarria further testified that Respondent could not comply with the Written Directive because Complainant called the police at the initial Jobsite Inspection, she “bombarded” him with emails and requests for every workers’ legal status, and continuously threatened to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on him, his workers, and subcontractors. Complainant asserted that she did not request citizenship status, but rather “work status” for all individuals working on the project.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 17, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 325803 was first issued on August 14, 2019, and is suspended for non-renewal effective August 16, 2025. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline 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 failed to obtain the proper permits for the expanded scope of the project and performed work without proper permits. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded a building code in a material respect that was prejudicial to Complainant, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project 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 evidence established that Respondent admittedly utilized unlicensed contractors for the project. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a).

The evidence established that Respondent did not provide a written contract for the project to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and acknowledged such. However, Respondent credibly testified that Complainant placed additional demands on Respondent requiring information concerning Respondent’s workers and/or subcontractors and repeatedly threatened to call ICE. Complainant admitted to requiring information regarding Respondent’s workers’ “work status.” Therefore, Respondent established valid justification for not complying with the Written Directive. Consequently, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated 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 Number 325803 for a period of ten (10) days.

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 19, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Arlo Houston

ROC Investigator

[email redacted]

Mona Madani

[email redacted]

A.F.O.N. Builder, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff