ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-06705-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Marsha Elaine Capps,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Elite Patio Covers & Gutters LLC

License No. ROC 357958,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-06705-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 17, 2026 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Marsha Elaine Capps appeared on her own behalf. Ernesto Torres appeared on behalf of Respondent Elite Patio Covers & Gutters, LLC. Observer Carlos Caballero. Investigator Aaron King on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibits 1 through 19.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Elite Patio Covers & Gutters, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 357958 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about March 12, 2025, Marsha Elaine Capps (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, an enclosed patio with screens. The contract amount totaled $16,160.00 and Complainant paid Respondent the total amount.

On or about July 7, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Aaron King. On August 26, 2025, Investigator King conducted a jobsite inspection where both parties were present.

On September 9, 2025, after the jobsite inspection, Investigator King 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, September 26, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: #1 - Gaps in screen, scratches on frame. Rubber securing screen has gaps. Sloppy job. Infestation of lies twice.

Investigator’s Observation:

a.) Gaps in screen- evidence presented was visible daylight at several bracket-to-post joints within the aluminum screen-enclosure framing at the patio. The condition was shown on site and I confirmed three locations with a preset measurement card; two joints measured approximately 3/32

inch and one joint measured approximately 1/16 inch. The observed gaps occur at internal connector interfaces within the screen assembly and not at the interface with the dwelling’s weather resistive envelope (e.g., roof-to-wall or flashing transitions); no moisture staining, corrosion, or movement was present at the time of inspection, and no other forms of documentation were provided that showed the requirement of closure strips or sealed joints at these specific internal connections. There is no directly applicable workmanship standard or IRC provision identified that governs cosmetic daylight at non-envelope joints in a non-conditioned aluminum screen enclosure; IRC R703.1 addresses the exterior wall weather resistive envelope of the dwelling and does not apply to these internal screen room joints. Based on the measurements taken, the location of the gaps away from the building envelope, the absence of related damage, and the lack of cited manufacturer or code requirement mandating closure at these joints, the condition does not establish a

violation of applicable standards. No action is required by the Respondent.

b.) Scratches on frame-scratches on the exterior frame of the screened in patio. Site verification showed fresh linear scrapes and rub marks aligned with the direction of recent installation work, with no contrary indicators of post installation damage, supporting causation to the project activities. The ROC workmanship standards require that work should be done in a professional and workmanlike manner and in accordance with applicable industry standards. This means it should reasonably include protecting adjacent finishes and delivering completed assemblies free of installation caused damage. Based on the verified evidence, the frame finish damage

constitutes a workmanship deficiency requiring corrective action to restore the affected members to a uniform, undamaged appearance consistent with the surrounding installation. The Respondent will correct this by the appropriate means.

c.) Rubber securing screen has gaps- the Complainant identified short butt-gaps between segments of the rubber spline that secures the screen fabric within the aluminum frame; the condition was shown on site, and I confirmed the spline is installed in separate lengths with small gaps where one segment ends before the next begins, but no measurable opening through the screen field, loss of screen tension, tearing, or related damage was demonstrated. The Complainant did not provide manufacturer installation instructions requiring a single spline, and no directly applicable standard or IRC provision is identified that govern cosmetic discontinuities in screen spline segments for a non-conditioned screen enclosure. On this record there is insufficient evidence of a violation of an applicable code, and deemed to be a preference. No action is required by the Respondent.

d.) Infestation of flies twice- the allegations are that two prior fly infestations within the screened patio occurred and the Complainant requests enforcement. On site I observed the aluminum screen enclosure with intact mesh, normal butt-joints in rubber spline, and minor daylight at several internal bracket – to- post connections previously measured at approximately 3/32 inch (two locations) and 1/16 inch (one location), with one open area, no tears and otherwise proper screen retention. The Arizona ROC does not license pest control professionals or businesses; licensing and regulation of pest management, including insect infestations, falls under the authority of the Pest Management Division of the Arizona Department of Agriculture. On this record there is insufficient evidence of a violation of an applicable code, standard, or manufacturer requirement by the Respondent. No action is required by the Respondent.

Complaint Item: #3- Roof leaks. See light between horizontal frame beam and roof above door area. They caulked, but still leaks.

Investigator’s Observation: The Complainant demonstrated active water

intrusion at the screened patio roof: moisture was present on the interior ceiling from the prior day’s rain, water tracing was visible along several panel interlock seams, and one seam had transported fine roof debris from the exterior to the underside, depositing dark particulate on the patio ceiling. The Complainant also pointed out visible light between the horizontal beam and the roof above the door area; while a light line alone can be cosmetic, in this case multiple wet seams and interior water runout confirmed leakage through the roof assembly. A roof or patio cover panel system that admits water under normal weather conditions does not meet minimum workmanship standards. Based on the verified conditions and the leaking panel interlocks, the Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Investigator King was informed that some corrective work was performed. As such, a Compliance Inspection was performed on October 29, 2025, with both parties present. The relevant Compliance Findings are as follows:

Complaint Item: #1 – Gaps in screen, scratches on frame. Rubber securing screen has gaps. Sloppy job. Infestation of lies twice.

Compliance Observation: Repair attempts failed as the scratches were evident due to incorrect repair colors used.

NOT CORRECTED

Compliant Item: #3 – Roof leaks. See light between horizontal frame beam and roof above door area. They caulked, but still leaks.

Compliance Observation: Compliance Observation: The original leak locations appear to have been corrected by the Respondent. In doing so, the Complainant has identified that the leaks have now migrated to new locations. Because there was no rain during the inspection and no water test was performed, the ROC could not verify active water intrusion. Without observable evidence of current leakage, a workmanship violation cannot be confirmed. The pictures provided show historical issues reported but unable to duplicate through artificial means on site at the residence. Therefore, unable to verify new leaks or note if related to the corrective work of this complaint. The leaks showing may be a new item altogether.

CORRECTED

On November 7, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Complainant testified that Complaint Item #3 which concerned the roof leaks should appear as not corrected for the compliance inspection. Complainant further testified that the current leakage was still present and new leaks have even appeared. Investigator King testified that the original leaks he verified during the jobsite inspection, he could no longer verify at the compliance inspection because water leaks were unable to be confirmed. Complainant vehemently disagreed.

Ernesto Torres, Respondent Qualifying Party, testified that they built a solid insulated patio cover, the gutter system was free of charge, and that there was a proper pigeon seal installed. Mr. Torres agreed that he saw a few minor scratches with the powder-coated paint and attempted to repair it to the best of his ability. Investigator King further testified that the repair attempts with the scratches and the paint were the only outstanding item from Complaint Item #1.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 17, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 357958 was first issued on March 27, 2025, and was Active. Such prior License record also reflected that there were no 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 established that Respondent’s work to repair the scratches and align the paint colors were 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).

As such, the evidence established that Respondent failed to properly complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued which was 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 357958 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $50.00 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.

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, April 6, 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]

Marsha Elaine Capps

3871 S Bandit Road

Gilbert, AZ 85297

[email redacted]

Aaron King

[email redacted]

Elite Patio Covers & Gutters LLC

13660 N 72 Ln

Peoria, AZ 85381

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff