ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-06453-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-09
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Georgina Martin,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Max Build LLC
License No. ROC 330073,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-06453-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 17, 2026 at 1:00pm
APPEARANCES: Georgina Martin appeared on her own behalf with witness Marty Martin. Chuck Peyton appeared on behalf of Respondent Max Build, LLC. Investigator Miles Crosby appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Packet (“Packet”). Arizona Registrar of Contractors Job Site Inspection Photos. Complainant Exhibits 1 through 6.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Max Build, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 330073, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on August 4, 2020. Respondent’s license class was a B-3 General Remodeling and Repair Contractor, this classification is defined as follows:
Allows the licensee to remodel and repair an existing residential structure or appurtenance except for electrical, plumbing, mechanical, boilers, swimming pools, spas and water wells, which must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor. The scope of work allowed under the R-7 carpentry classification is included within this scope. This classification does not include work authorized by the A-, B-1, or B-2 scopes.
On or about April 24, 2024, Georgina Martin (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent in the total amount of $26,260.10. The project included a bathroom remodel, kitchen work and a wine cooler addition, at Complainant’s residential home located in Lakeside, Arizona. Complainant has paid Respondent $17,016.01 towards the contract. Respondent’s three estimates did not include the following: estimated date of completion, ROC number, no information about change orders, billing schedule, progress payments, and no information about the Registrar.
On or about July 14, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging job abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Miles Crosby. On July 21, 2025, Investigator Crosby conducted a jobsite inspection, Respondent was not present.
On July 22, 2025, Investigator Crosby 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 Saturday, August 9, 2025.
. . . .
RESTRICTIONS
You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Hall bath shower doors are hung improperly. They roll open.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 2 - Hall bath shower doors are missing the rubber bumpers.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 3 - Hall bath toilet is not properly set and makes noise when you stand up from it.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 4 - Cabinet bases and boxes have been provided but not drawers and doors.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 5 - One cabinet base is too big for the cabinet provided.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 6 - Per ARS 32-1158 no schedule has been provided so I am not aware of when he will be on premises or complete the work.
Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not implicate a specific workmanship issue. Warning Letter to be issued.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 7 - Per ARS 32-1158 the contract did not include a required completion date.
Investigator’s Observation: This is a general statement and does not implicate a specific workmanship issue. Warning Letter to be issued.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 8 - Hall bath shower doors hung wrong. Etching needs to be on the outside of the shower.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 9 - Master bath is having a bidet installed. Contractor placed the outlet for power to the right of the toilet instead of be
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 10 - Due to the current outlet he put in for the bidet it impedes the closet pocket door from fully opening.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 11 - The master shower niche has an almost one inch slope from front to back. This is not the norm for niches, nor was it dis [sic]
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 12 - Left side of master shower niche is not plumb or the tile is placed in there in a way so as to make it look like it lean
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 13 - Shower tile in hall bath on the left and right sides is not flat and sticks out in several places.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.
After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Crosby was notified that no corrective work had been performed.
On August 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(13); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Hearing Evidence
Investigator Crosby testified that Respondent hired an unlicensed contractor to perform the bathroom remodel on this project. Investigator Crosby testified that this unlicensed contractor’s work was not up to the level of Registrar standards and Respondent even filed a complaint against him. Investigator Crosby further testified that he believed this matter constitutes a job abandonment, as well, because Respondent made no effort to communicate or appear at the job site inspection or perform any corrective work during the Written Directive period.
Complainant testified that during this project, communication with Respondent was “awful” and there was one excuse after the next as to why the project was not completed. Complainant testified that due to the delays, she could not use two bathrooms in the home and that she had to go elsewhere due to the inconvenience. Complainant contended that she informed Respondent during the Written Directive period, Respondent had full access to her home, however, there were no attempts to perform any corrective work.
Chuck Peyton, Respondent Owner, testified that he primarily worked in the Phoenix valley area and that this job up North became a logistical problem. Mr. Peyton further testified that he relied on unlicensed contractor(s) that lived near the project to do the demolition, drywall, paint, and tile in the master bathroom. Mr. Peyton admitted that he wound up filing a complaint against the unlicensed contractor(s) due to their work. Mr. Peyton disagreed with some of Investigator Crosby’s findings and believed he met the progress payments portion of the contract because they were tracked separately in change orders. In addition, Mr. Peyton testified that he tried to work on some matters after the Written Directive deadline but ultimately that did not work out.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 17, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 330073 was Active. Such prior License record also reflected that there were no other open complaints and two complaints resulting in discipline 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. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, the evidence failed to establish that Respondent abandoned the project due to Mr. Peyton’s attempts to perform corrective work after the deadline period. Accordingly, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent abandoned the contract in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).
The Written Directive included thirteen verified complaint items by Investigator Crosby. Although, Mr. Peyton disagreed with a few of the complaint items, the evidence clearly established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
Respondent filed a Registrar complaint against the unlicensed contractor that he hired to perform work on this project. Hence, the evidence clearly established that Respondent aided or abetted a licensed or unlicensed person to perform work on Complainant’s project. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a).
Respondent did not have a proper contract, in this matter, the Tribunal had a few estimates to look at which were not signed or proper. The evidence overwhelmingly established that Respondent’s contract/estimates failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).
Due to Mr. Peyton’s location, in relation to the project, Respondent was unable to properly complete this job in a timely manner and used unlicensed workers and there appeared to be no proper supervision. As such, the evidence established that Respondent knowingly entered into a contract with an unlicensed contractor for work to be performed on Complainant’s project for which a license was required. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(13).
Lastly, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 330073 for a period of two days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, March 9, 2026.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Georgina Martin
1054 W Amanda Lane
Tempe, AZ 85284
[email redacted]
Miles Crosby
[email redacted]
Max Build LLC
4983 S Moccasin Trl
Gilbert, AZ 85298
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff