ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04483-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-17
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
D H Pace Company Inc,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Monrad Veldman Construction LLC
DBA: Venn Construction,
License No. ROC 300445,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-04483-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 28, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Ashley Williams and Gina Bartoszek.
For Respondent: No appearance.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Monrad Veldman Construction LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 300445 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on August 3, 2015. As of November 17, 2025, the license had seven open complaints, four disciplined complaints, and eleven resolved complaints.
On or about August 23, 2023, D H Pace Company Inc. (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent.
On or about May 13, 2025, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay $53,550.50.
On or about May 19, 2025, the Registrar notified Respondent that it had received a complaint and the Complainant could raise issues and defenses.
On June 11, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation, alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154 (A)(10). Respondent submitted an Answer on June 26, 2025.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative hearing. The Notice of Hearing was issued on July 16, 2025, notifying the parties about the date and time of hearing. The hearing was rescheduled to October 28, 2025, on August 26, 2025, and notice was sent to both parties at their contact information of record.
Complainant’s witnesses testified in support of the work being performed and the amount identified being owed.
Respondent did not present any evidence.
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.
Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bore 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.”
A.R.S. § 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.
In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.
Upon review of the evidence submitted this case, Complainant established that Respondent owed $53,550.50 for materials or services rendered to Respondent in connection with Respondent’s operations as a licensed contractor.
The preponderance of the evidence showed that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10). Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge found grounds to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent pay Complainant $53,550.50 within thirty (30) days of the Order becoming effective, and if Respondent fails to do so, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 300445 until Respondent provides proof that it has paid Complainant in full.
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 17, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
D H Pace Company Inc.
[email redacted]
Gina M. Bartoszek
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Monrad Veldman Construction LLC
DBA: Venn Construction
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff