ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04313-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Sedona West Co. Inc.,

COMPLAINANT,

Hornick Contracting Co. Inc.,

License No. ROC 146081,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04313-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 15, 2025

APPEARANCES: Attorney Christian T. Lestinsky represented Sedona West Co. Inc. (“Complainant”). No person appeared on behalf of Hornick Contracting Co. Inc. (“Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”); Complainant Exhibits 1 through 4.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Hornick Contracting Co. Inc. is the holder of License No. 146081 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”).

On or about April 29, 2025, the ROC received from Complainant a Non-Payment Complaint Form (“Complaint”) alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant on multiple invoices from 2024 in the total amount of $26,477.36.

On May 27, 2025, ROC issued its Citation citing Respondent for alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statute (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1154(A)(10) for failure to pay monies in excess of $750.00 when due for services rendered.

On June 7, 2025, Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation. Respondent indicated that, after Mr. Hornick’s death, Mr. Hornick’s second wife subsequently passed away in 2023, and Respondent discovered that the business banking accounts and credit accounts had been set up in both Mr. and Mrs.’s names and, upon her death, the bank treated the accounts not as Respondent’s accounts but as Mrs.’s account and froze the accounts which cut off access to the Respondent’s business funds. Respondent recounted the financial nightmare circumstances which had resulted for Respondent and its operational situation.

The Complaint was not resolved informally and the ROC subsequently set the matter for hearing. At a hearing setting in August 2025, the parties discussed the matter and determined to come to an agreement regarding possible settlement. The matter was then continued to allow the parties to draft a written settlement and resolve the matter in that manner.

On August 20, 2025, Complainant requested the matter be reset for hearing, for the reason that the parties had not finalized a written agreement. The hearing was reset and subsequently accelerated for hearing, again on Complainant’s request.

By ORDER dated September 9, 2025, the hearing was set convene on September 15, 2025 in the event the matter was not resolved.

At the time of the hearing, Respondent failed to appear.

At the hearing, Complainant noted that there had been email from Respondent about settlement and Respondent wanting changes to the proposed written agreement; however the parties had not executed a final written settlement agreement.

At hearing, Complainant indicated that Invoice #24409 had been partially resolved because Complainant applied a $4,000.00 payment received in September 2024 from Respondent to Invoice #24409.

Later in the day on September 15, 2025, Respondent emailed Complainant, and copied the Tribunal, regarding the hearing. In the email Respondent indicated that it had not received the new order rescheduling the hearing. Respondent reiterated to Complainant its general agreement to a settlement.

Since the date of the hearing, Complainant has not advised the Tribunal that the parties were able to finalize a settlement.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and has been properly brought before OAH for adjudication.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution is ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of 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.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license,

[f]ailure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.

The hearing evidence established that Respondent had been invoiced a net total of $26,477.36 owed to Complainant for services performed.

Respondent failed to appear and, thus, failed to demonstrate and support any statutory justification or excuse for failing to issue payment to Complainant. Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the services performed by Complainant.

Based on the hearing record, Complainant established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $26,477.36 for services obtained from Complainant in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.

Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDed order

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that, on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar suspend Respondent Hornick Contracting Co. Inc.’s License No. 146081 until Respondent has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents which establish that Respondent has paid Complainant $26,477.36 in certified funds.

It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar does receive and accept Respondent’s evidence that Respondent has paid Complainant $26,477.36 in certified funds, the Registrar shall close the matter.

No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of the outstanding $26,477.36 to Complainant.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 30, 2025.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Hornick Contracting Co Inc.

P.O. Box 770

Laveen, AZ 85339

[email redacted]

Christian T. Lestinsky, Esq.

LANG THAL KING & HANSON PC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff