ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-06448-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-05
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Van Marcke Trade Supply
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Ward Plumbing & Drain Service LLC
License No. ROC 321592
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-06448-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 17, 2025
APPEARANCES: Daphne Betone appeared on behalf of Van Marcke Trade Supply (Complainant). No one appeared on behalf of Ward Plumbing & Drain Service, LLC (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A: The hearing packet of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On October 16, 2025, the Registrar mailed a Notice of Hearing to Complainant and Respondent at their addresses of record, setting the above-entitled matter for hearing on November 17, 2025 at 9:00 AM. The Notice of Hearing provided, in relevant part, as follows:
................................
You must attend this hearing. This is an adversarial hearing before an administrative law judge and is conducted in a similar manner to judicial proceedings. Thus, you must be prepared to present evidence, including witness testimony and documents, in support of your case.
................................
The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10)
................................
Because Respondent is a licensee and is charged with an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Respondent is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Because Complainant alleged Respondent committed an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Complainant is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Respondent and Complainant, as the parties to the hearing, will present evidence and argument to the administrative law judge.
................................
2. A hearing was held on November 17, 2025.
3. At hearing, Complainant’s credit manager, Daphne Betone, testified on behalf of Complainant.
4. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the hearing on November 17, 2025. Although the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 a.m., no one appeared on behalf of Respondent through an authorized member, officer, employee, or attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
5. Complainant agreed to supply plumbing material to Respondent for the total amount of $4,807.66. In or around July and August of 2024, Complainant issued invoices to Respondent for the total amount of $4,807.66. Respondent failed to pay the invoices.
6. On or about June 26, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent failed to pay for plumbing materials supplied to Respondent, in connection with Respondent's activities as a contractor.
7. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation that was issued. In the answer, Respondent did not dispute that it owed Complainant the balance amount alleged in the complaint. Respondent notified the Registrar that it had entered into a payment arrangement with Complainant.
8. At hearing, Ms. Betone stated that Respondent filed the complaint because Respondent never made the first payment. The outstanding balance is $4,807.66.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a
party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119.
“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify
on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result.
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011) (citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").
“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote
justice.” A.R.S. § 1-211(B).
The purpose of the ROC’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from
unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
8. 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 . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.”
9. Payment for “[s]ervices rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor” does not include interest, finance charges, lien charges, or other charges that are based solely on contract terms.
10. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
11. Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
12. Because A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) only includes a licensee’s failure to pay for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor, not late fees, interest, or other consequential or contractual damages, the Administrative Law Judge does not recommend that Respondent be required to pay late fees as a condition of keeping its contractor’s license in good standing.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the ROC suspend license number 321592 held by Ward Plumbing & Drain Service LLC, until it has provided to the ROC, and the ROC has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $4,804.66 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the ROC receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant in certified funds, the ROC may close the Complaint in Case No. 2022A-01208
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 5, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Van Marcke Trade Supply
[email redacted]
Ward Plumbing & Drain Service LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff