ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-05515-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jonathan Ramsey,

COMPLAINANT

Father & Sons Construction LLC

License No. ROC 313572,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-05515-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 12, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Jonathan Ramsey

Respondent: Rogelio Garcia

Lydia Gar

Registrar of Contractors: Lisa Melton, 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

Father & Sons Construction, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 313572 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on June 1, 2017.

On or about June 18, 2023, Jonathan Ramsey (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent to, among other things, repair an Arizona room.

On or about June 4, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Lisa Melton, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on June 23, 2025, scheduling the inspection for July 16, 2025.

Investigator Melton conducted the jobsite inspection on July 16, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Melton issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on July 21, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Compliance Item 1: Arizona room exterior not properly weather sealed

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant has experienced water infiltration since Respondent performed their scope of work (7/23). At the time of this inspection, Complainant has removed a section of drywall on the lower portion of the interior wall for investigation of leaking. Complainant states that some portions of the exterior wall were swollen/bowed after last rain event. Trim is bowed. Respondent performed the following scope of work:

• Demo drywall in AZ Room North & West wall 2 to 4ft of ceiling, laundry room north wall and about 2 ft of ceiling

• Demo siding of out side of Az room

• Redrywall areas demoed drywall tape, mud texture, paint

• Redo siding exterior where demo or rotted

• Repair east wall in living room mud, texture, paint

• Level out concrete floor to match extist flat leveled side 1 1/2 to 2 in rise

• Labor and Materials

Respondent did not obtain a permit for this work. The Phoenix Building Official does not require a permit for:

• 17. Installation of a nonstructural weatherproof exterior covering over an existing weatherproof covering on an existing structure so long as the new covering will not affect the fire-resistive classification of the existing structure. Exception: Installation of an insulated exterior finish system.

Respondent installed exterior covering after their demolition of the existing weatherproof exterior covering on this existing Arizona room. Respondent did not install an insulated exterior finish system, therefore, this work requires permit and inspection. Respondent should comply with all requirements of the building official relative to the scope of work they performed and provide this Investigator with documentation of passed/closed final permit for the work they have performed. Respondent should correct the damage caused by their poor workmanship (no permit or inspection).

Compliance Item 3: Arizona Room siding is warped

• Demo drywall in AZ Room North & West wall 2 to 4ft of ceiling, laundry room north wall and about 2 ft of ceiling

• Demo siding of out side of Az room

• Redrywall areas demoed drywall tape, mud texture, paint

• Redo siding exterior where demo or rotted

• Repair east wall in living room mud, texture, paint

• Level out concrete floor to match extist flat leveled side 1 1/2 to 2 in rise

• Labor and Materials

Respondent did not obtain a permit for this work. The Phoenix Building Official does not require a permit for:

Compliance Item 4: All exterior Arizona Room trim is warped or bowed

• Demo drywall in AZ Room North & West wall 2 to 4ft of ceiling, laundry room north wall and about 2 ft of ceiling

• Demo siding of out side of Az room

• Redrywall areas demoed drywall tape, mud texture, paint

• Redo siding exterior where demo or rotted

• Repair east wall in living room mud, texture, paint

• Level out concrete floor to match extist flat leveled side 1 1/2 to 2 in rise

• Labor and Materials

Respondent did not obtain a permit for this work. The Phoenix Building Official does not require a permit for:

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Melton of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on August 8, 2025.

Investigator Melton testified that after the Written Directive was issued, Respondent called and advised that he was unable to obtain a permit for the siding because the Arizona room, on which he installed the siding, was not permitted. Investigator Melton emailed the parties August 4, 2025, advising that despite Respondent’s inability to obtain a permit, the Written Directive remained in effect unless and until either the parties reached an agreement or the compliance period expired.

On August 5, 2025, Complainant advised Investigator Melton that he believed a permit for the Arizona room may exist and requested an extension of the compliance period while he attempted to locate the permit, which Investigator Melton granted and extended the due date of the Directive to August 20, 2025.

On August 28, 2025, Complainant advised Investigator Melton that the City of Phoenix would not permit the Arizona room without a floor plan and elevation drawings. On August 29, 2025, Complainant further advised that he had decided to not move forward with the permitting process for the Arizona room.

On September 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A) and A.A.C. R4-9-108(B).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on September 25, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that Respondent was unaware that the Arizona room was improperly built when he contracted to install siding. Respondent had first determined that permits were not needed for the work he was contracted to perform as it did not alter any load-bearing structural walls. Respondent further asserted that the water damage experienced by Complainant was not the fault of Respondent’s workmanship, but rather a result of the concrete slabs around the exterior of the Arizona room which were improperly sloped toward the building.

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

On October 3, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for November 12, 2025.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on November 12, 2025.

Investigator Melton testified in support of her jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, and the Citation. Specifically, Investigator Melton noted that had Respondent obtained a permit prior to the start of work, as required, Respondent would have been made aware that the Arizona room was not permitted.

Complainant testified in support of Investigator Melton’s testimony and the jobsite inspection findings. Additionally, Complainant testified that the work was done in June and July and he was initially satisfied. However, in February it rained and he noticed bowing on the siding. Complainant further testified that Respondent advised him that water infiltration would always be an issue because the way the Arizona room was built. Complainant stated if he had known that information, he would not have had the siding work done.

Respondent testified that he checked into whether a permit was required, but found that a permit was only required if a load-bearing structure was altered. He initially believed the roof was the source of the leak. Respondent further testified that the water infiltration issue was because the Arizona room was not built properly.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 14, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 313572 was Active; and there was one open complaint, 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.”

A contractor accepts the surface upon which they work. Prior to performing work, a contractor should inspect the surface for flaws or defects that would affect the work to be performed; if the surface is unacceptable, the contractor should call the defect to the owner’s attention so that the owner can choose to pay for corrective work or for the contractor to request a warranty disclaimer.

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 perform all work in accordance with applicable building codes and professional industry standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(B).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for one business day Respondent’s License No. 313572.

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, December 4, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Lisa Melton

[email redacted]

Father & Sons Construction LLC

[email redacted]

Jonathan Ramsey

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff