ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-07894-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-26
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
C and S Roofing, LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Encanto Custom Homes, LLC
License No. ROC 319893,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-07894-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 17, 2025
APPEARANCES: Collin Patterson and Devin Adams appeared on behalf of Complainant C and S Roofing, LLC. Jason Ewing appeared on behalf of Respondent Encanto Custom Homes, LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Encanto Custom Homes, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 319893 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
In or about August 2025, C and S Roofing, LLC (“Complainant”) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $2,166.63 representing the balance due for the roof installation performed by Complainant at the Blattner home.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent for its alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
The credible evidence presented at hearing established that the parties’ contract price for the roof installation was $83,992.28, and that Respondent has paid Complainant a total of $81,825.65 in four payments of $34,335.23, $17,018.07, $28,638.98, and $1,833.37.
The credible evidence presented at hearing established that Complainant performed all of the work it was contracted to perform and that there were no change orders during the course of Complainant’s work on the project.
Complainant’s representative, Devin Adams, testified that it was only after the final invoice was submitted that Respondent asserted that the contract price should be reduced. Complainant bid the project based on the plans Respondent provided to Complainant and Respondent did not mention any concerns during the course of the project.
Respondent asserted that the contract price should be reduced by 19% because the stable portion of the roof was 19% smaller than Complainant’s May 2023 proposal. However, Respondent did not execute a change order reflecting such change and Complainant ordered materials per the approved plans and contract specifications.
Respondent’s representative, Jason Ewing, asserted at hearing that Respondent does not owe Complainant any amount and “believed” the contract amount was less, however, had no documentary evidence to establish such. Mr. Ewing asserted that Respondent should have back charged Complainant due to the time it took to complete the project, the lack of supervision, and trash left behind. However, Respondent did not do so. Mr. Ewing acknowledged that none of his concerns were documented in writing. Mr. Ewing further asserted that Complainant is not licensed and that his contract was with another entity.
Regarding Mr. Ewing’s concern regarding Complainant’s license, the Registrar’s public website reflects that Complainant was licensed on June 20, 2023, the license is active, and Collin Patterson, who was present at hearing, is a Member of Complainant.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is 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.”
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license:
Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a licensee to pay monies in excess of $750 when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee's operations as a contractor unless the licensee proves that the licensee lacks the capacity to pay and has not received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.
The credible evidence established that at the time of the hearing, Respondent owed a total of $2,166.63 for the roofing work performed by Complainant.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $2,166.63 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
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.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License Number 319893 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $2,166.63 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $2,166.63 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case Number 2025-07894.
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 26, 2025.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Encanto Custom Homes, LLC
[email redacted]
C and S Roofing, LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff