ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02709-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jonathan J. Bodeen,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Wilco Tile and Floors, LLC

License No. ROC 201891,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-02709-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 28 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Jonathan Bodeen appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Wilco Tile and Floors, LLC did not appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Daniel Otero appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant Jonathan Bodeen’s Exhibits 1-4; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Wilco Tile and Floors, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 201891 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). William Louis Will was Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Owner.

Jonathan Bodeen (“Complainant”) is a co-owner of the Historic Grand Canyon Hotel located in Williams Arizona. In early 2024, Complainant contracted with Respondent for Respondent to demolish the existing tile in the showers and on the floors of twenty (20) restrooms and install tile supplied by the owners of the property. The contract price was $46,640.00. Complainant has paid Respondent in full.

On or about March 17, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to Respondent’s scope of work.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Daniel Otero. After an April 15, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Otero issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated April 24, 2024, 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, May 12, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: -Wilco was to install 20 showers and after one year 6 showers have failed. Leaking through curb and down to bottom floor.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified:

At the time of the inspection, it was observed and demonstrated that 18 units have shower stalls installed—several of which have failed or are actively leaking, while others show signs of potential issues requiring repair in the near future. Some showers have already been repaired by other parties, as noted below.

The observed installations reflect poor workmanship in multiple areas, including ceilings to wall transitions, floors, and both the rear and front walls— extending beyond the shower enclosures themselves. A separate comprehensive 3rd party inspection report documents water intrusion behind the tile, with some instances indicating that water may be seeping beneath the flooring.

The following summarizes the observations made during the ROC inspection.

Room 1) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed or missing floor tiles with inconsistent grout lines or improperly cut.

Room 2) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed, cracked tiles or missing floor tiles with inconsistent grout lines. Damage was evident on the drywall outside the shower beyond the typical splash area outside the shower curtain.

Room 3) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed or missing floor tiles with inconsistent grout lines or improperly cut.

Room 4) Shower pan redone by others

Room 5) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed or missing floor tiles with inconsistent grout lines or improperly cut.

Room 6) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking or missing floor tiles with inconsistent grout lines or cut improperly, more so around the drain .

Room 7) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, cracked tile, grout cracking, inadequately placed or missing floor tiles with inconsistent grout lines or improperly cut.

Room 8) Done by Others. No action required by the Respondent.

Room 9) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed and inconsistent grout lines.

Room 10) Done by others. No action required by the Respondent.

Room 11) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed and inconsistent grout lines.

Room 12) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed and inconsistent grout lines.

Room 13) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed, inconsistent grout lines and chipped tile on the curb.

Room 14) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed and inconsistent grout lines.

Room 15) No Access at the time of the inspection.

Room 16) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed and inconsistent grout lines.

Room 17) No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed and inconsistent grout lines.

Room18) Left side-No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed and inconsistent grout lines.

Right side- No leaking observed or demonstrated, inadequate caulking throughout, grout cracking, inadequately placed and inconsistent grout lines.

The Respondent will need to correct all showers by the appropriate means listed that were not repaired by others.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: - How long until all 20 fail? No confidence in the work completed.

Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not implicate a specific workmanship issue. It therefore cannot be evaluated by the ROC.

All errors in original.

Investigator Otero did not receive any response from Respondent regarding the Complaint or the Written Directive. After the expiration of the Written Directive, Investigator Otero ascertained that Respondent had not performed any corrective work.

Thereafter, Investigator Otero forwarded the matter 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. R4-9-108(A), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely, A.R.S. § 32-1158, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about June 3, 2025, Megan Will, William Will’s daughter and Administrative Manager for Respondent, filed an Answer to the Citation, and this matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, to conduct an administrative hearing.

The hearing of this matter was scheduled to convene on July 28, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Investigator Otero was also present. Respondent did not appear.

On June 20, 2025, the Registrar issued the Notice of Hearing advising the parties of the hearing date and time, and that the Office of Administrative Hearings would issue a Google Meet link for participation in the hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and email addresses of record with the Registrar.

On June 24, 2025, the Tribunal issued to the parties an Order Setting Hearing Via Google Meet. That Order contained the Google Meet link to join the hearing by video or phone. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Otero testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Otero inspected each room that was accessible and took numerous photographs depicting the workmanship deficiencies. Investigator Otero testified that similar workmanship deficiencies were present in many of the restrooms, such as the curbs in the showers were not sealed, most of the showers were not grouted, and tiles were not properly cut and were haphazardly installed.

Investigator Otero testified that after a review of Respondent’s contract document, he determined that it did not contain the required advisement to a consumer regarding the right to file a complaint with the Registrar.

It was ascertained during the hearing and upon a review of the Answer to the Citation, that Mr. Will passed away unexpectedly on January 29, 2025. Investigator Otero testified that in light of this information, he would not have recommended that Respondent be cited for abandonment or failure to comply with the Written Directive.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Otero’s testimony.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 7, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 201891 was first issued on November 16, 2004, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no 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.”

The evidence of record established that the project was completed. However, after completion of the project, deficiencies were noted. The Complaint was filed on March 17, 2025, after the January 29, 2025 passing of Mr. Will, the only individual named on Respondent’s license. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge cannot conclude that Respondent abandoned its contract or refused to perform without legal excuse and consequently, a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) has not been established.

The evidence of record did not establish that Respondent departed from or disregarded plans or specifications, and consequently, a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) has not been established.

The probative and substantial evidence of record 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’s contract did not comply with all of the statutory requirements for written contracts. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).

Due to Mr. Will’s death on January 29, 2025, Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directive. However, valid justification for such failure exists. Therefore, a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) has not been established.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, particularly in light of the death of the only individual named on Respondent’s license, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 201891 until November 30, 2026.

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, August 8, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Wilco Tile and Floors, LLC

[email redacted]

Jonathan J. Bodeen

[email redacted]

Daniel Otero

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff