ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-05598-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-31

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Pamela Graffam and

James Graffam,

COMPLAINANTS,

v.

BluGreen Heating &

Cooling Systems, LLC,

License No. ROC 351527,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-05598-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 22, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainants Pam Graffam and James Graffam appeared on their own behalf. Michael Griffin appeared on behalf of Respondent BluGreen Heating & Cooling Systems, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Jim Dimond appeared as a witness. Elijah McQuality appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice was taken of the Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

BluGreen Heating & Cooling Systems, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 351527 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about July 12, 2024, Pam Graffam and James Graffam (“Complainants”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install a new HVAC system at Complainants’ newly constructed home. The contract price was $21,036.95. Complainants have paid Respondent $18,700.00.

On or about June 6, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainants alleging abandonment of the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Jim Dimond. Investigator Dimond conducted a Jobsite Inspection on July 10, 2025. On July 22, 2025, Investigator Dimond issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 8, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Contractor wants to be paid in advance of work being completed which contradicts invoice.

Investigator’s Observation: Almost 90% of the contract has been paid.

The contract states 70% down and remainder upon completion.

The work is not done. The registers are not installed, the returns are not installed, the thermostats are not installed.

The contract is not complete and therefore the remaining balance does not appear to be due.

The respondent is to complete the work in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 2 - Contractors employee damaged steel roof panels running screws up through the plywood into the steel roof panels.

Investigator’s Observation: Sufficient evidence was present to support a workmanship violation.

It does appear that the respondent penetrated the standing seam metal roof from below.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner including the corollary damage.

Complaint Item: 3 - Contractor wants to be paid in advance due to cost of repairing damage, and will not finish job.

Investigator’s Observation: Refer to items 1 and 2 for guidance.

Following the expiration of the deadline in the Written Directive, on August 22, 2025, Investigator Dimond received an email from Complainants advising that no corrective action had been taken by Respondent.

Thereafter, Investigator Dimond forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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).

Respondent timely filed an Answer to the Citation and the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

Investigator Dimond testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Dimond testified that on the underside of the soffit, he observed screw holes that were circled in Sharpie, that were consistent with where the roof had been punctured and sealant had been applied. The holes on the underside of the sheathing were consistent with where the straps holding the ductwork in place were installed.

Investigator Dimond testified that Respondent called him after the Written Directive issued and stated that the damage had not been caused by him, however, Investigator Dimond’s observations indicated otherwise. Respondent also alleged that there were “payment issues.”

Complainants have since had the HVAC system replaced.

Elijah McQuality, the general contractor who constructed Complainants’ home, testified that he was present when the damage to the roof occurred. Mr. McQuality explained that he had contacted Respondent to request a change in installation location because the straps were originally installed in an incorrect location. The damage occurred when Respondent’s employee relocated and re-installed the straps for the ductwork. Mr. McQuality testified that the holes were not present when the straps were originally installed and that Respondent’s employee was working in the location of the screws and no other work was being performed in the soffit area by any other trades.

Mr. McQuality further testified that Respondent did not want to complete the project until Complainants paid more monies, however, Respondent had already been overpaid at that point, and was contractually obligated to complete the project prior to receiving final payment. Mr. McQuality testified that Respondent did not complete its scope of work.

Michael Griffin, Respondent’s owner, testified that he is a new contractor in the State of Arizona and that he “leaned” on Mr. McQuality and Mr. Graffam because they are experienced contractors. Mr. Griffin testified that he was “99% sure” he performed the work correctly. Mr. Griffin asserted that there was no evidence that the damage was attributable to Respondent.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 29, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 351527 was first issued on April 10, 2024, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainants bear the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations 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.”

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainants established that Respondent did not complete the project 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 evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and that valid justification for such failure did not exist. Therefore, Complainants 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 Number 351527 for a period of seven (7) 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 (30) 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, October 31, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Pamela and James Graffam

[email redacted]

BluGreen Heating & Cooling Systems, LLC

[email redacted]

Jim Dimond

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff