ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03706-CHC-ROC-RHG · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ashley Maitland,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

GRADIAS HOME BUILDER, LLC

License No. ROC 355845,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-03706-CHC-ROC-RHG

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 12, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Ashley Maitland appeared on her own behalf. Eric Gradias appeared on behalf of Respondent Gradias Home Builder, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Ruben Perez appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Gradias Home Builder, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 355845 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Eric Gradias is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Member.

On or about August 5, 2024, Ashley Maitland (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to construct a casita from an existing structure on Complainant’s property in Yuma, Arizona. The contract price was $29,938.00. Complainant paid Respondent $16,191.00.

On or about April 11, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Ruben Perez. After an April 30, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Perez issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated May 1, 2025. However, on May 5, 2025, Complainant filed an Addendum to the Complaint. Consequently, on May 29, 2025, Investigator Perez conducted an Addendum Jobsite Inspection, and on that same date, issued an Addendum Written Directive, 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 Friday, June 13, 2025.

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

Complaint Item 2: A proper building permit was not obtained for this project.

Investigator’s Observation: Contract for this project was dated on 08/05/2024. Local jurisdiction confirmed a building permit is required for this job however, no building permit was obtained for any work done. Respondent to obtain building permit (including final inspection) and correct issues by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 4: The contractor abandoned the project.

Investigator’s Observation: Contract for this project was dated on 08/05/2024. Complainant reported respondent has not worked on project since 01/12/2025. Respondent to complete project by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item

Complaint Item 7: I would like to add an addendum for the fence that Mr. Gradias broke with his bobcat. He was attempting to move an 8-string bail of hay out of the way for the project with his bobcat, and dropped the bail on my fence ruining it.

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant reported respondent damaged brick wall while moving items at jobsite. Fourteen foot section of brick was observed damaged. Contract for this project was dated on 08/05/2024. Complainant reported respondent has not worked on project since 01/12/2025. Respondent to correct and complete project by appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 1: The contractor misused funds. The funds were used for personal use instead of the project.

Investigator’s Observation: This item is not a workmanship issue.

Complaint Item 3: The contractor was going to do electrical work without consulting an electrician for the project.

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant reported respondent was supposed to run electricity line to project building however, work had not been done at time of inspection.

Complaint Item 5: The project was supposed to be finished within 4-5 weeks but it is still incomplete which is violation of the contract

Investigator’s Observation: This issue was addressed in complaint item 4.

Complaint Item 6: The contractor asked for more money for the roof which was outside of the contract and not finish the project unless paid

Investigator’s Observation: This item is not a workmanship issue.

On June 23, 2025 Investigator Perez conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection and observed that Respondent had not made any attempt at performing the required corrective work.

Thereafter, Investigator Perez forwarded the Complaint 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), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1158, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing. The matter initially proceeded to hearing on September 8, 2025. Respondent did not appear for that hearing setting. A Decision was issued. Respondent requested a rehearing and the request was granted, resulting in the instant proceeding.

Investigator Perez testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive, Amended Written Directive, and the Compliance Notes. Investigator Perez referenced the photographs he took during his inspections that depicted the work performed by Respondent, which included framing, electrical, insulation, and plumbing. Investigator Perez testified that Respondent performed work on the project without obtaining the required permit.

Investigator Perez testified that he had no communication from Respondent and Respondent was not present for any of the inspections.

Investigator Perez testified that Respondent’s contract documents did not contain Respondent’s license number, name, or address, and also did not contain the required advisement regarding the Registrar’s complaint process.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Perez’s testimony. Complainant testified that Respondent broke a fence due to Respondent using a bobcat to move hay bales that would have been impossible for a human to lift.

Mr. Gradias testified that the parties had a verbal contract and that the written document was a “bid memo” not a written contract, and therefore, it was “not binding,” and there were no costs associated with permits in the bid memo. Mr. Gradias contended that there was no formal contract because Complainant did not sign a contract. However, Complainant did sign the “bid memo.” Mr. Gradias asserted that Complainant did not pay seventy-five percent of the contract price, and only paid for “discovery work” on an old building.

Mr. Gradias testified that Respondent began the process of constructing a casita from an existing structure and agreed to do so “sight unseen.” Respondent “did not know what [it] would discover.” Respondent agreed to utilize the existing water and electric, however, the sewer system was damaged by roots, which increased costs.

Mr. Gradias asserted that Respondent only contracted for “clean up and discovery” and therefore, a permit was not required, and Respondent “did not do any work that needed a permit.” Mr. Gradias testified that Respondent performed demolition work and did “not cover up anything that needed to be inspected.” Mr. Gradias admitted that Respondent cut cement, started on the plumbing and framing in order to be “a little ahead of the game” and in order “to speed it up a little bit,” and that nothing structural was done and nothing was “covered up.” However, Mr. Gradias acknowledged replacing walls due to termite damage.

Mr. Gradias testified that he repaired the roof on the structure and charged Complainant $700.00. However, Complainant did not pay Respondent for this work.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 24, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 355845 was first issued on November 27, 2024, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in 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 established that Respondent contracted to perform the renovation of an existing building into a casita and in fact, began its work on the project. The credible evidence further established that Respondent abandoned its contract and/or refused to perform further work on the project without legal excuse. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence established that Respondent failed to obtain a permit for the project and performed work without a permit, notwithstanding that the scope and type of work performed by Respondent required a permit. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent disregarded specifications (i.e. the need for a permit) in a material respect that was prejudicial to Complainant, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).

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 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 documents do not contain all of the statutorily required elements for contracts. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to demonstrate valid justification for such failure. 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 Number 355845 for a period of seven (7) 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 (30) 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.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine (9) terms required by A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) within thirty (30) days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, November 26, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Ruben Perez

[email redacted]

GRADIAS HOME BUILDER, LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Ashley Maitland

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff