ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-07185-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Joe Hoffman,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

The Builders of Arizona Inc.,

ROC License No. 311649,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-07185-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 05, 2026 at 1:00 PM.

APPEARANCES: Joe Hoffman (“Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf. Jim Dimond appeared n behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Doug Green appeared on behalf of The Builders of Arizona Inc. (“Respondent”). Preston Newberry observed.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the referring agency’s attached administrative file, Complainant Exhibits 1-7, and December 23, 2025, Hearing Order were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

Having reviewed the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website. On February 23, 2017, the Registrar issued License No. 311649 for General Residential B contracting to Respondent. The license is renewed through February 28, 2027. Mark Given Ervin is listed as the Qualifying Party and Officer on the license. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 16019 N. 68th Ave. Peoria, AZ 85382. Respondent has two (2) $9,000.00 active surety bonds on the license issued, by American Contractors Indemnity Company and RLI Insurance Company respectively. The license has been disciplined on two (2) prior occasions. Currently, there is one (1) open complaint against the license, which is presumed to be related to the case at bar.

On July 21, 2025, the Registrar received a 2-item complaint from Complainant against Respondent’s License No. 311649 alleging poor work regarding a new residential construction project. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2025-07185 and assigned it to Jim Dimond (“Investigator Dimond”) for investigation.

On August 05, 2025, Investigator Dimond issued a Dismissal Letter to the parties to advise that a complaint form had not been received by the Registrar, and relatedly, that Complaint Nos. 2024-03759 and 2024-06185 had already been decided in Complainant’s favor against Respondent so it was presumed that Complaint No. 2025-07185 was prematurely filed and likely unnecessary.

On August 15, 2025, Investigator Dimond issued a Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on September 03, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On September 03, 2025, Investigator Dimond inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was present. Investigator Dimond also reviewed the contract-related correspondence between the parties, and took 13 photographs of the project site. When she was finished, Investigator Dimond drafted his Jobsite Inspection Notes. Based on his firsthand observations, Investigator Dimond substantiated both complaint items. Specifically, Investigator Dimond determined that Respondent needed to “correct the batten fasteners below the top of the horizontal blocking” in an appropriate manner, and also use manufacturer-approved nails for repairs.

On September 24, 2025, Investigator Dimond issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent due to his substantiation of Complainant’s complaint allegation(s) against License No. 311649. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on October 14, 2025, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) §§ 32-1154(A) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On October 15, 2025, Investigator Dimond forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Citation Recommendation.

On October 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(2)(a), 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a), and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until November 01, 2025, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On October 31, 2025, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer whereby Mr. Green argued that the project, whereby work was stopped per Complainant’s request over two years prior to the filing of Complaint No. 2025-07185, was an “owner build.” Mr. Green also argued that substantiated complaint items in Complaint No. 2025-07185 had already been addressed in Complaint Nos. 2024-03759 and 2024-06185, for which Respondent had already been subject to discipline by the Registrar. Mr. Green opined, essentially, that because Complainant had supplied materials for the underlying project Respondent as absolved of voiding any warranties related to their use.

On December 04, 2025, the Registrar issued an Order Denying Request to Dismiss to Respondent, as the agency determined that, per Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1162(A)(1), the applicable statute of limitations for new residential construction was two (2) years after close of escrow or occupancy, whichever occurred first, and that because Complainant took occupancy of the property at issue on October 15, 2023, dismissal was not appropriate. The Registrar further held that dismissal was not appropriate because allegations made in Complaint No. 2025-07185 were unrelated to issues addressed in Complaint Nos. 2024-03759 and 2024-06185, as the former were in relation to the RV garage and not the residential structure identified in the current action.

On December 08, 2025, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on February 05, 2026. Per the December 22, 2025, Notice of Hearing the issues to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following alleged statutory violations:

Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)

Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – A.A.C. R4-9-108(A)

Charge 3: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Hearing Evidence

Complainant testified on his own behalf and called Investigator Dimond as a witness. Mr. Green testified on behalf of Respondent. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:

Complainant owns a residential property located at 12465 E. Mingus Vista Dr. Prescott Valley, Arizona 86315.

On or about November 02, 2022, the parties entered into a $120,000.00 agreement for the labor-only framing of an RV garage and separate residential structure, approximately 9,885 square feet, with vapor barrier and drawings.

The parties’ draw schedule was a 20% down payment, 30% remittance at 50% project completion, 25% remittance at 75% project completion, 15% remittance at 90% project completion, and a final 10% remittance at project completion.

On an unknown date, the project cost was increased to $150,000.00.

Work on the project commenced on or about November 12, 2022, and stopped on or about April 15, 2023.

Between approximately December 04, 2022, and December 27, 2022, Complainant tendered $112,500.00 to Respondent on the contract.

Between September 24, 2025, and October 14, 2025, did not attempt to remediate substantiated complaint items 1 or 2, request an extension of the Directive’s compliance period, or enter into a financial settlement agreement with Complaint.

At no point in time during the Directive’s compliance period did Respondent allege a denial of access to the project site.

Additional Evidence

Complainant testified that on October 01, 2025, he emailed Mr. Green to schedule Respondent’s corrective work, but that he received no response. Complainant also denied providing Respondent with the “wrong” materials for the underlying project.

Per Mr. Green, there was not contract between the parties because he “turned it over” to Preston Newberry to complete. Mr. Green testified that he was upset by the third current complaint because he had already expended thousands of dollars to remediate the underlying project during the pendency of Complaint Nos. 2024-03759 and 2024-06185, but that the individual he paid failed to complete corrections. Mr. Green admitted that he had been confused as to what action was required of Respondent in the current complaint, and that he was generally overwhelmed by the Registrar’s administrative disciplinary process.

Closing Arguments

Respondent declined to provide a closing argument.

In closing, Complainant noted that he was desirous of accessing the Registrar’s Recovery Fund to remediate his project with Respondent, and opined that disciplinary action was warranted against License No. 311649 for the burden the contractor imposed on his family.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1101 et seq. and 32-1154(A). The matter was properly brought before OAH pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 41-1092 et seq.

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.

The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he 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.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[d]eparture or disregard of plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.”

Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a) requires that “[a] contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] holder of a license may not fail to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. The Registrar has the authority to issue license discipline under this provision, including summary suspension, revocation, or imposing a civil penalty or recovery fund award.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E) holds, in pertinent parts, that the Registrar may “[i]mpose a civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars on a contractor for each violation. The failure by the licensee to pay any civil penalty imposed results in the automatic revocation of the license thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty. It also holds that no future license may be issued to an entity consisting of a person who is associated with the contractor, unless payment of any outstanding civil penalty is tendered.”

Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. In interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the language of the statute and, if it is unclear, turn to other factors, including ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.”

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”

The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.

The material facts in the case at bar are clear.

The credible evidence of record clearly reflects that the parties had a $150,00.00 labor-only framing agreement for an RV garage and separate residential structure, and that Complainant paid Respondent $112,500.00 on the project. It is also clear from the record that poor work Respondent performed on the RV garage was addressed in complaints previously filed with the Registrar by Complainant, and that complaint items 1 and 2 regarding the residential structure were unique to the current matter. It is also clear from the record that Respondent’s work on those items fell below the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards, and that Respondent failed to timely complete correction of those items by the expiration of the Directive issued September 24, 2025. It is undisputed that the parties also did not settle their dispute by that time.

Therefore, the only remaining issue to address is whether Respondent raised sufficient justification or excuse for failing to appropriately correct substantiated complaint items 1 and 2 in the case at bar, enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant to satisfy the Directive, or enter ask for an extension of the Directive prior to the expiration of the corrective order’s compliance period. These are an affirmative defenses that Respondent bears the burden to establish. The Tribunal is not at liberty to make presumptions in favor of Respondent or accept facts in mitigation on behalf of Respondent that are not supported by the evidence. Here, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act in any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. Respondent’s arguments regarding use of materials supplied by Complainant notably ignores the licensee’s duty to ensure appropriate materials are used during construction on its project, regardless of who or whom the General Contractor is. Addiitonally, Respondent’s argument that the project was “handed over” to Mr. Newberry is not supported by the record and raises concerns regarding potential violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(9). Ultimately, no exigent or otherwise mitigating evidence exists in the record in favor of Respondent.

Because Complainant has established Respondent’s statutory violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(2)(a), 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a), and 32-1154(A)(22) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline License No. 311649.

Complainant may petition the Registrar’s Recovery Fund for financial recompense in this matter.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In consideration of the foregoing conduct,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that five (5) days after the effective date of the Final Order in this matter ROC License No. 311649, General Residential B contracting license, be suspended five (5) days by the Registrar.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum total of $100.00 (one hundred dollars) in certified funds as a civil penalty in this matter.

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 shall 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.

NOTICE

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, February 17, 2026.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

c/o Legal Department

Registrar of Contractors

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Joe Hoffman, Complainant

12465 E. Mingus Vista Dr.

Prescott Valley, AZ 86315

[email redacted]

The Builders of Arizona Inc., Respondent

c/o Doug Green, Agent

16019 N. 68th Ave.

Peoria, AZ 85382

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff