ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2025A-02830-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Matthew Millea,

COMPLAINANT

Custom Stucco & Repairs, LLC

License No. ROC 341882,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-02830-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 30, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Matthew Millea

Respondent: Sergio Piedra

Registrar of Contractors: Robert Di Alto, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing and Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant exhibits 9-15 and 16.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Procedural

Custom Stucco & Repairs, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 341882, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors on November 23, 2022.

On or about October 23, 2024, Complainant entered a contract with Respondent for lath and stucco work to the exterior of Complainant’s home.

On or about March 24, 2025, Matthew Millea (Complainant) filed an Unlicensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.

The complaint was initially assigned to an unnamed investigator, but was reassigned to Investigator Robert Di Alto, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on April 3, 2025, scheduling an inspection for April 29, 2025. Due to a scheduling conflict, the inspection was rescheduled to May 6, 2025.

Investigator Di Alto conducted the jobsite inspection on May 6, 2025, and a representative of Respondent, but not the qualifying party, was present. Following the inspection, on May 8, 2025, Investigator Di Alto issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent that provided:

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 05/30/2025.

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Stucco is cracking near windows.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed several areas at the south and east windows where the stucco appears to have bubbled, and exhibit cracks in excess of minimum standards of 1/16” (page 10-11-12 in JSI photo report). The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 2 - Stucco on rear wall not completed to soil.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is a visible gap of 1”-2” between the bottom the block wall and stucco finish (see page 9-10-13 in JSI photo report). It does not appear that the native soil was cut back and pulled away from the wall prior to stucco being applied. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 3 - Base coat shows through finish in areas.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The base coat is readily visible in multiple areas around the exterior of the residence. The finish coat appears to not be thick enough to adequately cover the gray stucco base coat (see pages 1-27 in JSI photo report). The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Di Alto of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 30, 2025.

On June 4, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with the following violations:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A)

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.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154,(A)(8)

Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract.

Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.

On June 17, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation stating, “As of today’s date my license has not yet been reinstated. Per the inspector I cannot perform any work to resolve any issues or discrepancies for this job until my license is reinstated.”

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

On June 25, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for July 30, 2025.

A hearing was held on July 30, 2025 via Google Meet.

Hearing Testimony

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 30, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 341882 was suspended on December 2, 2024 for non-renewal; and there was one (1) open case, zero (0) disciplined cases, and zero (0) resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

Investigator Di Alto testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, and Citation issued. He further testified that he had no subsequent communications with Respondent following the jobsite inspection and no work was completed due to Respondent’s inactive license. Investigator Di Alto stated, “No great care or detail was shown in this work.” On questioning, Investigator Di Alto expressed that the biggest concern with cracking in stucco is that anything over 1/16th inch allows moisture to penetrate the substrate which causes dry rot and a “plethora” of other problems because it isn’t sealed. Additionally, he noted that stucco applied in December that had cracked by the following May would likely indicate the material was not applied per the manufacturer’s instructions. Investigator Di Alto also stated that the usual standard in general practice is to apply stucco to two inches below the water line.

Complainant testified that he brought all the complaint items to Respondent’s attention prior to filing a complaint. Respondent stated he would take care of the complaint items, but did not. Complainant further testified that he had to have other contractors fix the work.

Respondent admitted some of the work performed had cracked and needed to be fixed; however, he did not have the money to fix it and his license was suspended because he was unable to pay for renewal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

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.”

In the instant matter, Respondent contracted to perform stucco work on the exterior of Complainant’s home. While Respondent did perform stucco work, it did not meet industry standards as evidenced in the jobsite photographs, Written Directive, Investigator Di Alto’s testimony, and by Respondent’s own admission. 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 that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work or reach a financial settlement with Complainant following the Written 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).

No evidence was provided regarding the charged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8). Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent failed to complete the project for the price stated in the contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8).

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. 341882.

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, August 19, 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]

Matthew Millea

[email redacted]

Custom Stucco & Repairs, LLC

[email redacted]

Robert Di Alto, Investigator

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff