ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04852-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jeremy Ryder,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Encanto Custom Homes LLC,

License No. ROC 319893,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-04852-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 23, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Jeremy Ryder appeared on his own behalf. Jason Ewing appeared on behalf of Respondent Encanto Custom Homes LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Encanto Custom Homes LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 319893 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about March 1, 2021, Complainant hired Respondent to build a single-family residence in Queen Creek, Arizona.

On or about May 15, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Patricia Schuette. The jobsite inspection was performed on June 10, 2025.

Investigator Schuette then issued a Written Directive on or about July 16, 2025.

A compliance jobsite inspection was performed on August 25, 2025. In her notes regarding the same Investigator Schuette found the following in pertinent part:

Compliance Findings:

. . .

Complaint Item: 4 - Hallway floor light not installed- live wire exposed

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. The electrical was ran and live wire is rolled and exposed. Complainant to work with Respondent on what fixture is being installed.

Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: No corrective measures taken however, the Respondent stated that an agreed upon fixture for install has not be selected.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

. . .

Complaint Item: 10 - Main Garage ceiling lights missing in middle section of two bays per plans

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. The approved electrical blue print shows two can lights between the two bays. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Holes were cut in ceiling for the missing can lights. Respondent stated that they were waiting for can lights.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

. . .

Complaint Item: 15 - Drywall repair stills needs painted around fireplace

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. A drywall repair was completed and paint is needed. Respondent to correct within appropriate means

Compliance Observation: No corrective measures taken.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

. . .

On August 29, 2025, 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).

On or about September 5, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about July 17, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on August 29, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

The hearing was held on October 23, 2025.

There were no material disputes over the incomplete remaining items. Complainant argued that Respondent has had unfettered access to make the final repairs and has failed to do so, despite Mr. Ewing residing two doors down from Complainant. Complainant was further concerned about the safety hazard of the open wires.

Mr. Ewing testified that he sent pictures of a fixture on May 28, 2025 and has not heard back from Complainant as to what he wants installed. Also, Mr. Ewing testified that Complainant had no provided him with a paint color to repaint the fireplace drywall. Finally, Mr. Ewing estimated that it would take approximately two days to finish the repairs.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 7, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 319893 was first issued on May 14, 2018, and reflected that there were five open cases, one of which was the present case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as there were live wires exposed in the hallway, the drywall had not been repainted, and there was a missing light in the garage.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to complete the relatively minor corrective work. 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 No. 319893 for two 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 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.

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 7, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Encanto Custom Homes LLC

[email redacted]

Jeremy Ryder

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff