ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-06101-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Gary & Teresa Levis,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Dream House Construction & Renovations
LLC,
License No. ROC 342522,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-06101-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 5, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Gary Levis and Teresa Levis.
For Respondent: Christopher Quick.
For the Registrar of Contractors: John Peru.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 14.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Dream House Construction & Renovations LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 342522 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on January 6, 2023.
On or about April 27, 2024, Gary and Teresa Levis (Complainant) entered into a home purchase agreement with CQ Real Estate Investment & Development, LLC as the seller (CQ) for, among other things, construction and purchase of a home. Christopher Quick was the owner of CQ and the qualifying party for Respondent.
On or about June 19, 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 conducted a noticed jobsite inspection on August 12, 2025. Following the inspection, Investigator Peru issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent, requiring Respondent to correct the therein-identified defective work by appropriate means. The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Peru of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on August 28, 2025.
Complainant informed Investigator Peru that no corrective work had been performed on the project.
On September 5, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on September 6, 2025.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The construction permit names Dream House Construction & Renovations LLC as the contractor of record. The sales documents did not name a contractor. CQ was not a licensed contractor.
Investigator Peru testified in support of his findings.
Complainant testified that Respondent’s name was on materials deliveries, Mr. Quick wore a shirt with Respondent’s logo, and that Complainant was lead to believe that Respondent was the general contractor.
Mr. Quick testified that CQ and Respondent were different companies, and he was the owner of both. He testified that Respondent only performed the pool and concrete work, and he argued that Respondent should not be held responsible for anything outside of that scope. He testified that from an accounting and tax perspective CQ and Respondent were different entities for the purpose of this project.
Mr. Quick testified that CQ was the owner builder of the project and that there was not general contractor.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 19, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 342522 was suspended for discipline on August 19, 2025. The license had two open cases, four disciplined cases, and two resolved cases against it.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
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.”
Respondent argued that it was not the contractor for the job, and the contract was not with Respondent. Respondent argued that the contract was with a development company, which Respondent’s qualifying party owned, and the project did not have a contractor of record.
For new builds and other construction projects, it is a rebuttable presumption that the contractor named on a permit is the contractor of record, which is responsible for the work performed on that project. That contractor may either perform the work itself or act as a general contractor, hiring subcontractors to perform that work.
Respondent was the contractor of record on the permits.
Owners of property who act as developers, building structures for sale, are required to maintain a license unless they fall within the exemption in A.R.S. § 32-1121(A)(6). Respondent’s argument means that CQ may have engaged in unlicensed contracting while Respondent acted as a general contractor of record. Under these circumstances both entities may be subject to discipline within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. However, whether CQ engaged in unlicensed contracting is not at issue in this matter.
Based on his testimony, Mr. Quick clearly intended to engage in legal gamesmanship to avoid responsibility. He did not do so effectively.
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 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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 342522.
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).
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 24, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
John Peru
[email redacted]
Dream House Construction & Renovations LLC
[email redacted]
Gary & Teresa Levis
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff