ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-06612-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Alexander Belotz,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

KLB Remodel, LLC

License No. ROC 316821,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-06612-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 11, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Alexander Belotz appeared on his own behalf. Respondent KLB Remodeling, LLC did not appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Peru appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant Alexander Belotz’s Exhibits 4, 7, and 8

FINDINGS OF FACT

KLB Remodeling, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 316821 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

Alexander Belotz (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for the remodel of the primary bathroom in Complainant’s home. The contract price was approximately $34,000.00. There was a change order in the amount of approximately $1,800.00, bringing the total contract amount to approximately $35,800.00. Complainant has paid Respondent approximately $28,000.00 toward the contract price.

On or about August 4, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to Respondent’s scope of work.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator John Peru. After a September 2, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, that Respondent did not attend, Investigator Peru issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated September 3, 2025, 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, September 19, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Structural Defect - The interior framing of the shower

window is improperly sized

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

At the time of this inspection, I observed the Master Bathroom Walk-in-Shower was built over/covering up the Rear Exterior Window. Additionally, the respondent initiated the project without obtaining a permit with the

Municipality Building Dept. The respondent shall obtain a permit and correct by appropriate means. REF :( JSI PICS).

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 2 - Electrical Damage - During electrical work, other

outlets in the home were grounded improperly

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of this inspection, the complainant stated that this allegation has been corrected by a third party entity.

Complaint Item: 3 - Delays and Missed Commitments - Repeated missed

installation dates and poor communication have delayed the project

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation is not within the ROC's Jurisdiction.

Complaint Item: 4 - Fines and Damages - A dumpster placed in my

driveway for an extended time led to fines

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation is not within the ROC's Jurisdiction.

The deadline for compliance with the Written Directive was extended to October 6, 2025, at Respondent’s request, as Investigator Peru believed that Respondent would act in good faith. However, after extending the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Respondent made no efforts at communication with Complainant or the performance of the required corrective work. There was no evidence of a permit application having been filed, no materials were delivered to the jobsite, and no work was scheduled. Therefore, after the expiration of the extended deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Peru 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 (B), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

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

This matter was initially set for hearing on December 16, 2025. On December 11, 2025, Respondent requested a continuance of that hearing setting due to the investigator’s unavailability to appear at the hearing. The request was granted and on the following day, December 12, 2025, the Tribunal issued to the parties at their respective email addresses of record, an Order Granting Continuance and Setting Hearing Via Google Meet. That Order advised the parties of the continued hearing date and time of February 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. It also contained the information and instructions as to how to appear for the hearing either by video or by phone. The Order was sent to Respondent’s email address of record: [email redacted].

On February 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Investigator Peru was also present. Respondent did not appear.

After a grace period, the hearing proceeded on February 11, 2026, in Respondent’s absence, as Respondent did not request a continuance of the hearing prior to the commencement of the hearing and did not notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of any cause for the absence or delay.

On February 17, 2026, at 10:26 a.m., Respondent filed a Motion for Continuance that stated the following:

I made a mistake and missed this hearing. I did not realize I missed it. I had a death in the family and just noticed when I went to check when this was rescheduled for. If possible can I request a continuance or another hearing to correct the matters prior to?

On February 17, 2026, the Tribunal denied Respondent’s untimely Motion for Continuance, finding that good cause did not exist for the requested continuance. While the Tribunal was not unsympathetic to Respondent’s personal issues, Respondent was aware of the re-scheduled hearing and Respondent waited until six (6) days after the scheduled hearing to communicate with the Office of Administrative Hearings. Moreover, Respondent did not provide any specific information concerning why a request for continuance was not filed prior to the hearing date or why Respondent could not participate in the hearing either by phone or video.

Because Respondent failed to appear for hearing, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Peru testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Peru testified that a permit was required for Respondent’s scope of work as plumbing had to be moved due to the changing of the footprint of the bathroom. Regarding the window, Investigator Peru referenced the photographs taken during the Jobsite Inspection to illustrate the deficiencies in Respondent’s workmanship.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Peru’s testimony. Complainant testified regarding Respondent’s lack of responsiveness and professionalism, and submitted text message chains into evidence to corroborate such testimony.

Complainant testified that prior to the Jobsite Inspection, he was compelled to address the electrical issues caused by Respondent because he needed to utilize his HVAC system.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 23, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 316821 was first issued on December 5, 2017, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are two open complaints, including the instant Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and one complaint 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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The credible, probative, and substantial evidence of record established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards, as it was not performed in a professional and workmanlike manner, and was not performed in accordance with applicable building codes and professional industry standards given the lack of permit. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A) and (B).

The credible, probative, and substantial evidence of record established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the issuance of the Written Directive and that valid justification for such failure did not exist. Therefore, Complainant 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 316821 for a period of ten (10) 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, February 24, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

KLB Remodel, LLC

[email redacted]

Alexander Belotz

[email redacted]

John Peru

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff