ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02432-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Anatoliy Vasser,

COMPLAINANT

v.

ELDER CONTRACTING LLC

License No. ROC 349755,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-02432-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 4, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Anatoliy Vasser was represented by Ryan Bailey. Investigator Albert Bernal appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Elder Contracting LLC. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 349755 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about June 13, 2024, Anatoliy Vasser (Complainant) agreed to have Respondent remodel his bedroom closet and laundry room at his home in Queen Creek, Arizona. The contracted amount was $72,065.14, and Complainant paid $63,065.14.

On or about March 10, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Albert Bernal. The jobsite inspection was performed on March 31, 2025.

Investigator Bernal then issued a Written Directive on or about April 21, 2025, that 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 May 9th, 2025 .

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Master closet - Tile in Closet Floor is hollow underneath, needs better insulation.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I noted that one tile was hollow in the laundry room. The Respondent is aware of the issue and agree to correct it.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 2 - Master closet - Missing grout in the master closet Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Grout was missing in multiple flooring (Grout lines) areas in the laundry room. Respondent is aware of the issue and agreed to correct it.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 4 - Master closet - Missing cap on ceiling electrical. Investigator’s Observation: verified. Electrical box installed in ceiling did not have a cover plate.

Respondent is aware of the issue and the agreed to correct it.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 5 - Closet & Laundry: Floor to be cleaned and grout color sealed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Section of the grout line along the baseboard (behind door) had different color on it (wall/ baseboard paint). Grout line color was inconsistent. Respondent is aware if the issue and agreed to correct it.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 6 - Office: Holes/cuts in wall due to plumbing from washer/dryer install in closet

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Multiple drywall texture areas were inconsistent These areas were located in the office and wall behind washer and dryer. Nail pops, and scratches were noted in areas shown to me.

Respondent is aware if the issue and agreed to correct it.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 14 - Drywall repair due to countertop install.

Investigator’s Observation: Drywall was damaged while installing the countertops in the laundry room. Mark on drywall measured approximately 1" length, and it was readily visible.

Respondent is aware of the issue and agreed to correct it.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

...

(All errors contained in the original)

On June 25, 2025, Complainant filed an Amended Complaint. A Jobsite Inspection occurred on July 14, 2025 on that Complaint.

On July 18, 2025, Investigator Bernal issued a Written Directive on that Complaint as follows in pertinent part:

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 August 13th, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: The Laundry room cabinets were originally marked as complete have since been removed and partially replaced. The contractor ordered the incorrect new cabinets (frameless vs. framed), and needed to again reorder most of the parts. Cabinets were removed on May 5th, and homeowner does not have any functioning cabinets to date.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Condition described were present. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, and manufacturer’s installation instructions.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 2: Cosmetic defects in laundry room (ex. scratches and gouges to the wall)

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Condition described were presented due to cabinet installation was not completed at the time of the jobsite inspection Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, and manufacturer’s installation instructions.

Reference Pictures:

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 3: Laundry room door frame has a gouge in the wood that needs to be filled / painted. Happened either during install or removal of cabinets.

Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Gouge on door casing was noted. Respondent is aware of the issue. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

...

(All errors contained in the original).

On September 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible 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).

On or about October 2, 2025, Respondent timely submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about November 6, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 11, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. A copy of the Notice of Hearing was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent’s addresses of record.

After a continuance, the hearing was held on March 4, 2026. A copy of the Order setting the continued hearing was sent to Respondent’s e-mail address of record

The hearing took place as scheduled on March 18, 2026. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

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

Investigator Bernal testified that as to the first Directive, while there were items that were not to be found violations of workmanship, they were because work on those items had not even commenced at the time of inspection. Mr. Bernal also testified that items 1, 2, and 3 had not been completed.

Complainant testified on his own behalf and echoed Investigator Bernal’s testimony. Further, Complainant testified to his frustrations with RJ and how he handled the project, such as raising the price, and then walking away from an agreed-upon settlement and refusing to sign the same. Complainant requested that Respondent’s license be revoked.

Although the start of the hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Further, Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 19, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 349755 was first issued on January 22, 2024, and reflected that there were four open cases, one of which was the present complaint and one ”resolved/settled case”.

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).

Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice.

The preponderance of 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 workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. 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 No. 349755.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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, March 19, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Ryan D. Bailey, Esq.

Stone Canyon Law PLC

[email redacted]

ELDER CONTRACTING LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff