ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03681-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Cathy Lane,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Meridian Home Maintenance LLC

License No. ROC 322542,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-03681-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 26, 2026

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Cathy Lane

Respondent: No Appearance

Registrar of Contractors: Mark Nipp, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Meridian Home Maintenance, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 322542 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on November 6, 2018.

On or about March 14, 2024, Cathy Lane (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for $5,820.00 to construct a patio awning.

On or about April 11, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mark Nipp, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on May 2, 2025, scheduling the inspection for May 21, 2025.

On May 22, 2025, Complainant filed an addendum to the original complaint. On the same date, Investigator Nipp issued an amended Jobsite Inspection Notice, scheduling the inspection for June 9, 2025.

Due to scheduling conflicts of the parties, Investigator Nipp rescheduled the jobsite inspection. The rescheduled Jobsite Inspection Notice was issued on June 2, 2025, scheduling the inspection for June 12, 2025.

Investigator Nipp conducted the jobsite inspection on June 12, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Nipp issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on June 12, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Patio Cover is Leaking.

Investigator’s Initial Observations: The Complainant climber up on the CMU wall adjacent to the patio cover and was able to conduct a water test. I observed from beneath the patio cover and noted that within seconds of starting the test, the patio cover leaked extensively.

Required Actions: The respondent is directed to correct the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Complaint Item: 2 - Nails from roof exposed.

Investigator’s Initial Observations: I inspected the underneath side of the patio cover roof and noted there were nails, screws, and drill bits penetrating the sheathing. The screws used to attached the metal roofing material evidently missed their mark and penetrated the sheathing. The drill bits will contribute to leaks.

Required Actions: The respondent is directed to correct the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Complaint Item: 3 - Wood is warped/damaged. (Combined with Complaint Item #4 & 8. #4 – The main beam holding up said structure is twisted and crooked and is moving away from its center. #8 – The entire patio covering was poorly built and is an unsafe structure at best.)

Investigator’s Initial Observations: I saw that the beam was obviously twisted to the point that the west Simpson Strong Tie was bent. I measured the twist at each end and noted that the both ends of the beam exceeded 1 1⁄4 inches. The installed beam was a 4” x 10”. The standard listed below does not list a 4 x 10 beam/post. The standard for a 4 x 12 was used. The Respondent agreed that the beam was excessively twisted and required replacement.

ROC Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors (March 2024) states, Twisted or warped exterior posts or beams should not twist more than 1 1⁄4 inches (4x12 post).

Required Actions: The respondent is directed to correct the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Complaint Item: 5 - The wood that is underneath the beam on the corner of the laundry room has been splitting ever since the beam was placed in the wall.

Investigator’s Initial Observations: Both parties agreed that the Respondent removed a section of the siding material so they could install jack studs to support the east end of the beam. I saw that there was cracked/split trim adjacent to the area where the siding/trim was removed. The Complainant had painted some of the area in an effort to slow the cracking. However, it is likely that the removal and replacement of the siding/trim contributed to the cracking of the trim pieces.

Required Actions: The respondent is directed to correct the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Complaint Item: 6 - Reused old wood was installed under the soffit.

Investigator’s Initial Observations: Both parties agreed that the Respondent re-used old playwood for the soffits. The Respondent stated that providing new plywood for the soffits was not included in the contract. I inspected the soffits and noted that the plywood was split in many places and there were multiple mismatched joints. It was obvious that the plywood had partially delaminated during the removal and re-installation process. Delaminated plywood loses its strength and is prone to failure. I also noted there were multiple unfilled nail/screw holes. Despite the fact that new plywood was not included in the contract, the Respondent has a responsibility to re-install the old plywood in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Required Actions: The respondent is directed to correct the listed conditions by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Nipp of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on July 3, 2025.

On August 18, 2025, Respondent informed Investigator Nipp that no resolution had been reached.

On September 2, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on September 16, 2025. Respondent’s Answer acknowledged that the project cost was above the allowable limit for his license. However, because it was beyond the scope of his license, he could not resolve the Complaint. Respondent noted that he was working to upgrade his license classification.

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

On September 30, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for October 31, 2025.

The hearing was continued on three separate occasions on requests from both parties. On or about December 12, 2025, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to January 26, 2026. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on January 26, 2026.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be further continued. 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.

Investigator Nipp testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, and the Citation. Specifically, because the project was found to be outside the scope of Respondent’s license, he was not permitted to do any corrective work. Thus, the only remedy was financial.

Complainant testified that she was concerned about her safety because the soundness of the awning was unknown. In March, after a bad rain, when she walked under the awning, a drill bit hit her on the head. Complainant further testified that there had been no communication from Respondent.

Respondent’s Answer asserted that he had worked in construction for over 50 years, but at his age now, he had to rely on help to complete projects, but the “quality labor pool was few and far between.”

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 16, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 322542 was Revoked; and there was 1 open complaint, 1 disciplined case, and 1 resolved/settled complaint against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Respondent was deemed to have received the Notice of Hearing by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record, and the Office of Administrative Hearings sent the order setting the continued hearing date to Respondent at its email address of record.

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Respondent’s revoked 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.”

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license(s) in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16), as Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-103(B) provides:

R-62 MINOR HOME IMPROVEMENTS

For projects of $5,000 or less including labor and materials, this classification allows the licensee to perform remodeling, repairs, and improvements to existing structures or appurtenances. The minor home improvement contractor shall not perform structural work to any existing structures or appurtenances, including load bearing masonry or concrete work (with the exception of on-grade flat work), and load bearing carpentry work (with the exception of patio or porch covers).

Any work related to electrical, plumbing, air conditioning systems, and boilers must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor.

[emphasis added].

The preponderance of the evidence 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. 322542.

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 16, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Mark Nipp, Investigator

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Meridian Home Maintenance LLC

[email redacted]

Cathy Lane

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff