ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03337-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARIA MAFTEAN,

COMPLAINANT

v.

SONORAN VISION LLC

License No. ROC 346815,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-03337-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 21, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Maria Maftean appeared on her own behalf. Michael Franz appeared on behalf of Respondent Sonoran Vision LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Charles Riddlehoover appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Sonoran Vision LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 346815 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about June 11, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to perform work at her home in Phoenix, Arizona.

On or about April 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 Charles Riddlehoover. The jobsite inspection was performed on April 27, 2025.

Investigator Riddlehoover then issued a Written Directive on or about May 20, 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 June 4th, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - plumbing

Investigator’s Observation: During inspection, the complaint item was not yet completed. A multitude of deficiencies were noted throughout the project. At this time the respondent shall make corrections to pass rough inspection before moving forward with any additional items. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondent is not appropriately licensed to do this work, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

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 - Framing

Investigator’s Observation: During inspection, the complaint item was not yet completed. A multitude of deficiencies were noted throughout the project. At this time the respondent shall make corrections to pass rough inspection before moving forward with any additional items. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, and local building codes.

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: 3 - Foundation

Investigator’s Observation: During inspection, the complaint item was not yet completed. A multitude of deficiencies were noted throughout the project. At this time the respondent shall make corrections to pass rough inspection before moving forward with any additional items. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, and local building codes.

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....

On June 20, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A) and (B); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about July 5, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about July 15, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on August 21, 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.

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

Investigator Riddlehoover testified that a representative from Respondent failed to appear and the jobsite inspection, and that because Respondent’s license was suspended during the corrective work period, there was no compliance with the Directive, or other settlement.

In addition, as to the workmanship and building code charges, Investigator Riddlehoover testified that drain pipes were installed in the center of the hallway, which was not according to plans, nor was there a stamped copy of plans at the jobsite.

Complainant testified that she paid the first contract in full in the amount of $67,000.00, and paid $25,000.00 on the second contract of $47,000.00.

Mr. Franz testified that the project was very difficult from the beginning, and that Complainant wanted to control everything. Mr. Franz also testified that they were not given the correct blueprints to do they work. In addition, Mr. Franz testified that while Respondent failed the framing inspection, it passed the plumbing inspection.

Further, Mr. Franz testified that work stopped in December due to Complainant’s lack of payment, but from that point until mid-February, Respondent made attempts to resolve the matter. However, Mr. Franz testified that Respondent’s license is currently suspended as its’ Qualifying Party resigned in mid-February.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 3, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 346815 was first issued on August 1, 2023, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case. The License record also reflected that the license was currently suspended.

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 the parties contract was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), Respondent refused to perform on the contract since December.

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A) and (B), as Respondent failed to follow the plans and failed the framing inspection.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established that no corrective work was performed nor was there any effort to resolve the matter once the Directive was 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 suspend Respondent’s License No. 346815 for a period of five business days.

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, September 3, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Maria Maftean

[email redacted]

Sonoran Vision LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff