ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08096-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Joseph T Apa Jr.,

COMPLAINANT

Ronald Frank Bennett II

DBA: Bennett Construction,

License No. ROC 344737,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-08096-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 24, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Joseph T. Apa appeared on his own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Cliff Corlett appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Ronald Frank Bennett II, DBA Bennett Construction (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 344737 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about July 4, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel his residence in Kingman, Arizona.

On or about August 11, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Cliff Corlett. The jobsite inspection was performed on September 4, 2025.

Investigator Corlett then issued a Written Directive on or about September 11, 2025, which provided in pertinent part 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 or about Sept 27, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Didn't finish electric. No outlets, no fans. No fire alarm. 220 stub for hot tub.

Investigator’s Observation: This is a master bedroom room suite addition in progress. Addition is stuccoed, roofed, drywalled and painted. Addition is ready for interior finish, cabinets, electrical & plumbing fixtures, millwork, doors, floor covering and split HVAC.

RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY COMPLETE ALL CONTRACTED WORK ON THIS ADDITION.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Complaint Item: 2 - Didn't finish plumbing. No toilet, sinks, vanity, shower door.

RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY COMPLETE ALL CONTRACTED WORK ON THIS ADDITION.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Complaint Item: 3 - Didn't install carpet or tile or baseboard.

RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY COMPLETE ALL CONTRACTED WORK ON THIS ADDITION.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Complaint Item: 4 - Didn't finish roof.

Investigator’s Observation: Roof, fascia, drip edge needs completion on south side of house where new roof meets the old roof. Fascia corners appear to need metal corner caps.

RESPONDENT SHOULD COMPLETE BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 5 - Cement cracked.

Investigator’s Observation: Concrete patio has a hairline crack. Cracks less than 3/32- inch do not require any corrective work.

NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Complaint Item: 6 - No screens for windows or slider.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed.

Respondent should properly provide and install window and sliding glass door screens,

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Complaint Item: 7 - No 12x12 attached Alumawood patio cover.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed.

Respondent should properly provide and install Alumawood patio cover.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Complaint Item: 8 - Exterior paint.

Investigator’s Observation: Addition paint appears to be darker than existing house color. Respondent applied a vertical "stripe" of darker paint on existing house.

Very noticeable.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT MISMATCH BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 9 - Didn't install HVAC split.

RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY COMPLETE ALL CONTRACTED WORK ON THIS ADDITION.

Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1). . .

(All errors contained in original)

On September 19, 2025, Investigator Corlett issued his Compliance Notes as follows:

. . .

Compliance Inspection Not Conducted: ☒

Compliance Jobsite General Notes: On 9/4/25 ROC conducted onsite inspection.

ROC confirmed all workmanship complaint allegation.

9-11/25 ROC issued Written Directive for Respondent to properly complete this addition project.

The Directive had a compliance due date of 9/27/25. **Note** This would not have been been sufficient time to complete this work, however extensions would have granted if Respondent had started work.

8/30/25 Respondent sent the ROC an email advising that the project had been underbid and there were no funds to complete the project.

Compliance Findings: RESPONDENT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE.

. . .

(All errors contained in the original).

On September 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about October 4, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar, as follows:

I understand the charges as they are written. It was never intended to abandon or refuse to perform the work as outlined in the original contract. Overhead costs and business challenges along with underbidding due to a lack of understanding of costs compiled to lead to my business failing. I am in the process of filing bankruptcy. I can only take this opportunity to once again state my deepest apologies for this unintended outcome.

On or about October 21, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on November 24, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and e-mail address of record. Further, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order setting the matter for Google Meet on July 3, 2025, and sent it to the parties’ email mail addresses of record. Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).

Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

At hearing, Investigator Corlett testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Complainant testified that he paid $62,500.00 of the $65,000.00 contract price and Respondent has not spoken with him since.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 9, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 344737 was first issued on May 1, 2023, and reflected that there were two open cases, one of which was the present case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the job in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the roof, fascia, drip edge needed completion on the south side where the new roof met the old roof and the painting was darker than the original color which was very noticeable.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established all items remained incomplete. 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 No. 344737 for ten business 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 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, December 9, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Joseph T Apa Jr.

[email redacted]

Ronald Frank Bennett II

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff