ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2025A-04415-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Debra Alexander,

COMPLAINANT

Borges Painting LLC

License No. ROC 334796,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-04415-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 13, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Debra Alexander

Respondent: Gabriel Borges

Registrar of Contractors: John Peru, 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

Procedural History

Borges Painting LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 334796 (CR-34 Painting and Wall Covering) issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on September 16, 2021.

On or about March 29, 2025, Debra Alexander (Complainant) entered into an oral contract with Respondent for, among other things, interior house painting and a kitchen remodel.

On or about May 2, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on May 7, 2025, scheduling the inspection for May 28, 2025.

After rescheduling due to schedule conflicts, Investigator Peru conducted the jobsite inspection on May 22, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Peru issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on May 23, 2025 that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Poor paint job, can see old paint through new paint, needs second coat, drywall not repaired, baseboard not done.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed the kitchen, living room, bedrooms, baseboards and interior doors to be poorly finished. There were rough repairs, un-painted/un-caulked areas, areas where original paint was bleeding through, runs and drips on the ceiling, cracks/unfilled seams, and poorly painted doors. Additionally, the respondent has removed electrical switch plates, electrical outlet plates, and Bi-fold doors at the Laundry area and upstairs Linen Closet. REF: (P) 17 through (P) 19, (P) 1 through (P) 9.

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 - Kitchen cabinets, sink, countertops, appliances all demoed and left in backyard, no cabinets, countertops, backsplash.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed the kitchen to be demoed. The cabinetry, countertops, tile backsplash have not been started. There were no new materials per contract onsite. Additionally, there was a scope of work to run a dedicated circuit for the above range microwave, installation of a Farm Sink, plumbing connections, and possibly moving the drain. Furthermore the respondent holds a CR-34 (Painting and Wall Covering) license, and cannot initiate any work related to; -Cabinetry demo/installation -Electrical -Tile Work -Plumbing. The respondent must obtain the appropriate license within the Written Directive period, or come to a resolution with the complainant outside of the ROC. REF: (P) 10 through (P) 16.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Peru of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2025.

In addition to the Written Directive, Investigator Peru issued two warning letters to Respondent. The first warning letter was notice of violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16), contracting beyond the scope of the license; the second warning letter was notice of violation of A.R.S. § 32-1158, minimum elements of a contract.

On June 10, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Peru that no corrective work had been performed on the project.

On June 13, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(1); 32-1154(A)(3), namely A,A,C, R4-9-108(A); 32-1154 (A)(16); and 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on June 30, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that because it did not finish the job on time, Complainant fired Respondent and would not allow it to return to finish the work.

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

On July 9, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for August 13, 2025.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on August 13, 2025.

Background

Complainant initially hired Respondent to paint a newly purchased home. Respondent was scheduled to begin painting on April 4, 2025, with an expectation of 2-3 days to complete.

When Respondent had completed painting, Complainant noticed multiple missed areas of paint. Respondent advised it would return after the flooring was installed on April 7, 2025.

During this time, Complainant hired Respondent to also complete a kitchen remodel, with the understanding that the entire project must be completed by April 30, 2025 at noon as Complainant had to move out of her current home into the new one. Complainant met Respondent to pick out cabinets. Complainant chose cabinets and a cabinet vendor.

On return from a business trip, on April 22, 2025, Complainant observed that the painting had not been done, and by April 28, 2025, neither the painting nor the kitchen was done. Respondent advised Complainant that it would be at the home on April 30, 2025 in the morning and all work (painting and kitchen remodel) would be completed by noon that day.

Respondent did not arrive at the home until between 11:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. and began taping to paint. Complainant asked Respondent to leave at that point because they needed to move in their belongings.

Investigator Peru testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, and the Citation. On questioning, Investigator Peru testified that an investigator would have to be notified if there was denial of access to comply with the Written Directive. Additionally, he received no correspondence from Respondent during or after the compliance period, and that while Respondent was not allowed to correct work outside the scope of its license other remedies would satisfy the Written Directive (e.g. refund, obtaining appropriate license, etc.).

Complainant testified it was significant that Respondent was hired to begin painting on April 4, 2025 because the flooring was being installed on April 7, 2025 and was so scheduled to avoid paint dripping onto the new floor. Complainant further testified that the importance of the April 30, 2025 deadline was made clear and reiterated throughout. Additionally, Respondent advised on April 28, 2025 that it had ordered cabinets from a separate vendor, but refused to give the vendor information to Complainant. Investigator Peru advised that Complainant would have to allow Respondent access and an opportunity to correct the painting, but Respondent could not correct the kitchen as it was out of scope of the license; however, Respondent never contacted Complainant after April 30, 2025.

Respondent testified that he believed it was legal to contract out the electrical work because the charge was for less than $1,000, and the electrician gave his word it was done correctly. Respondent further testified that the cabinets were delayed and that was why they were not completed on time. Respondent denied that it refused to give Complainant’s the cabinet vendor’s information.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 1, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 334796 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), one disciplined case, and no resolved/settled complaints 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. 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.”

After a prolonged period of failing to work on a project, a contractor cannot overcome a claim of abandonment by accomplishing a minimal task on the project.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project or refused to perform work without a legal excuse in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1). Respondent began painting on April 4, 2025 and soon thereafter began demolition for a kitchen remodel. However, by April 22, 2025, no additional work had been completed, despite Respondent understanding importance of the April 30, 2025 deadline.

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 failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158.

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).

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).

“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license . . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for five days Respondent’s License No. 334796.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $50]0.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the Order Respondent shall provide an amended contract to the Registrar which establishes compliance with the requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. If Respondent fails to comply, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until it provides a compliant contract.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, September 17, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

John Peru

[email redacted]

Borges Painting LLC

[email redacted]

Debra Alexander

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff