ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04036-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jody Behrendsen,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

JIC Contracting, LLC,

License No. ROC 316317,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04036-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 18, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Jody Behrendsen appeared on her own behalf. Respondent JIC Contracting, LLC did not appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Gregory Kinsfather appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

JIC Contracting, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 316317 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about September 18, 2023, Jody Behrendsen (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install a new patio awning, a ceiling fan, flood lights, a TV antenna, and to secure an electrical panel. The contract price was $10,000.00.

On or about April 21, 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 Gregory Kinsfather. After the filing of the Complaint and prior to scheduling a Jobsite Inspection, Respondent indicated that it would continue working on the project, and consequently, the Complaint was closed. However, in early October 2025, Complainant contacted Investigator Kinsfather to request that the Complaint be re-opened because Respondent had not performed any further work after the Complaint had been closed.

Investigator Kinsfather conducted a Jobsite Inspection on November 18, 2025. Respondent did not attend the Jobsite Inspection. After the Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Kinsfather issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated November 20, 2025, 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 December 5, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Leaks all the way across the trailer when it rains fairly

hard by back door is the worst porch is halfway soaked

Investigator’s Observation: During my inspection the complainant showed me to the newly installed porch in the backyard of the home. Though the complainant did not demonstrate leaks at the inspection, based on my observations of the work done where the new porch meets the existing structure, this item is verified. The junction of the existing structure and the new porch was attempted to be sealed with what appeared to be roof tar or wet patch. There did seem to be significantly less of the patch applied to the area directly above the door on the home. Additionally I observed at least one valley in the new porch that could contribute to the leaking at the junction of the structures. As such, the respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 2 - Trim to be put back up

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant did show me a small amount of trim and flashing that had come off the rear of the porch, the material was still present. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 3 - 3 spots of concrete to be grinded off

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant did show me three areas

where there was excess concrete left over on the existing concrete pavers that made up the patio underneath the porch structure. All three were in areas where the new porch piers were installed. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 4 - Contract said $10,000 kept on asking for more money taking advantage of us paid $7,800 more than contract

Investigator’s Observation: The ROC does not have jurisdiction over

financial matters, as such no action is required of the respondent on this complaint item.

After the expiration of the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Kinsfather ascertained from Complainant that Respondent had not performed any corrective work. Thereafter, Investigator Kinsfather forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department for the issuance of a Citation.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed an Answer to the Citation, and the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The hearing of this matter was scheduled to convene on February 18, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on her own behalf. Investigator Kinsfather was present. Respondent did not appear.

On January 12, 2026, 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.

Also on January 12, 2026, the Tribunal issued to the parties an Order reiterating the date and time for the hearing. That Order contained the Google Meet information to join the hearing by video or phone and was sent to Respondent’s email address of record. 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 Kinsfather testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive.

Complainant testified that she agreed with Investigator Kinsfather’s testimony and findings. Complainant asserted that Respondent took advantage of an elderly consumer.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 27, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 316317 was first issued on November 21, 2017, and was revoked as of May 10, 2019. Such prior License record does not reflect any open complaints, notwithstanding 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 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 of record established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directive. Due to Respondent’s failure to appear, Respondent did not establish, as an affirmative defense, that valid justification for such failure existed. 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 revoke Respondent’s License Number 316317.

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 2, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Greg Kinsfather

[email redacted]

JIC Contracting, LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Jody Behrendsen

3100 W. Hanna Road

Eloy, AZ 85131

By: OAH Staff