ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08589-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-31

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lou Jackson,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Better Way Homes, LLC

dba Payson Handyman,

ROC License No. 351975,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-08589-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 30, 2025 at 1:00 PM.

APPEARANCES: Lou Jackson (“Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf with Diane Jackson as a witness. Chris Allison appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). No appearance(s) by or on behalf of Better Way Homes, LLC (“Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the Registrar’s attached agency file, Registrar Supplemental Exhibit 1, and December 04, 2025, Hearing Order were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of 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 May 03, 2024, the Registrar issued License No. 351975 Specialty Residential R-62 Minor Home Improvements contracting license to Respondent. Although the license was renewed through May 31, 2026, it was revoked by the Registrar effective December 15, 2025. Daniel James Bunting is listed as the Qualifying Party and Owner on the license. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 1000 N. Beeline Hwy., Ste. 1010 Payson, AZ 85541. Respondent had two (2) $4,250.00 surety bonds on the license, which were cancelled on unknown dates. The license has been disciplined on one (1) prior occasion, and has had one (1) prior complaint settled or otherwise resolved against it. Currently, the license has three (3) open complaints against it; one of which is presumed to be related to this matter.

On August 24, 2025, the Registrar received a narrative complaint from Complainant against Respondent’s License No. 351975 alleging abandonment and poor work of their residential remodeling project. Attached, Complainant included the parties’ underlying contract and proof of payments made to Respondent. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2025-08589 and assigned to Chris Allison (“Investigator Allison”) for investigation.

On August 26, 2025, Investigator Allison issued a Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on September 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On August 26, 2025, Investigator Allison issued a Warning Letter to Respondent because he believed the original scope of work for the underlying project required possession of a R-61 Carpentry, Remodeling and Repairs contracting license for work in excess of $5,000.00 that Respondent did not possess during the relevant time period, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1154(A)(16), which could result in discipline against Respondent’s license including suspension or revocation.

On September 11, 2025, Investigator Allison inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was not present. Investigator Allison also reviewed the contract-related correspondence between the parties, and took 34 photographs of the project site. When he was finished, Investigator Allison drafted his Inspection Notes. Ultimately, Investigator Allison derived fourteen (14) separate and distinct complaint items from Complainant’s narrative submission to the Registrar, of which, he substantiated seven (7) based on his firsthand observations. Specifically, Investigator Allison determined Respondent’s workmanship on complaint items 1, 4-8, and 11 failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum standards and required remediation for the identified deficiencies.

On September 19, 2025, Investigator Allison issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent because he substantiated half of Complainant’s allegation(s) against Respondent. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on October 05, 2025, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

Investigator Allison also included the following advisement to Respondent:

*** RESPONDENT IS CURRENTLY WORKING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF LICENCE HELD (R-62 Minor Home Improvements). PRIOR TO ANY WORK REPSONDENT WILL NEED TO OBTIAN AN APPROPRIATE LICENSE. RESPONDENT’S ONLY OTHER RECOURSE IS AN ALTERNATE RESOLUTION WITH THE COMPLAINANT. ***

(Emphasis and errors in original.)

On October 07, 2025, Investigator Allison forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Citation Recommendation.

On October 09, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1), 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a), 32-1154(A)(16), and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until October 24, 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 22, 2025, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer whereby Respondent argued that delays in the underlying project were due to the passing of Mr. Bunting’s father and loss of tools stolen by tradesmen working for Respondent. Respondent denied all Citation allegations, with the exception of one – whereby Mr. Bunting acknowledged that certain areas of flooring and paint were not completed to his expectations.

On November 17, 2025, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on December 30, 2025. Per the November 25, 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)(1)

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

Charge 3: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16)

Charge 4: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Hearing Evidence

Complainant testified on his own behalf, and called his wife, Mrs. Jackson, and Investigator Allison as witnesses. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:

Complainant owns residential property located at 1568 Pine Canyon Rd. Happy Jack, AZ 86024. The property was purchased December 2024 and intended as Complainant’s retirement domicile.

On March 17, 2025, the parties entered into a $43,387.07 contract for a primary bathroom remodel and interior paint. Respondent was paid $37,854.86 towards the project.

Work on the project was scheduled to commence on April 03, 2025, but did not begin until April 11, 2025. The project was supposed to be completed by June 03, 2025, but did not conclude until August 04, 2025.

Between September 19, 2025, and October 05, 2025, Respondent did not apply for additional licensure from the Registrar in order to permissibly remediate the underlying project or enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant regarding substantiated complaint items 1, 4-8, and 11, as required by the Directive.

At no point in time during the Directive’s compliance period did Respondent request an extension thereof to the agency.

Additional Evidence

Respondent did not communicate with Investigator Allison or Complainant during the Directive’s compliance period.

Mr. Bunting did not attach a police report or insurance claim to Respondent’s Answer to corroborate his allegation of theft.

Complainant testified that the state of the project remains unchanged since Respondent last performed work.

Closing Argument

In closing, Complainant noted that he was desirous of accessing the Registrar’s Recovery Fund in order to recoup remediation-related expenses for his project with Respondent, and opined that disciplinary action was warranted against ROC License No. 351975 for the burden placed on his family.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The matter was properly brought before OAH for adjudication.

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.

The Notice of Hearing the Registrar mailed to Respondent’s address of record is sufficient, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing in this matter. Because the Registrar mailed all correspondence to Respondent in the same manner and failed to receive any mail returned as undeliverable, Respondent is deemed to have received all correspondence regarding this matter from the Registrar as well.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause 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)(1) holds, in pertinent part, that that among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is “[A]bandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.”

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)(16) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[k]nowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.”

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.

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 not in dispute.

It is undisputed that the parties had a residential remodeling contract that exceeded the scope of Respondent’s contracting license, and that work Respondent performed on the project failed to meet the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards. It is also undisputed that Complainant paid Respondent over 87% of the contract price. Most notably, it is also undisputed that Respondent did not attempt comply with the Registrar’s Directive, or request an extension thereof.

Therefore, the only remaining issue to address is whether Respondent raised sufficient justification or excuse for failing to obtain appropriate licensure and/or enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant to satisfy the Registrar’s Directive, or enter ask for an extension thereof 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. Though it remains unclear why Respondent never communicated with Complainant or the Registrar between September 19, 2025, and October 05, 2025, the record reflects that Respondent failed to act in any degree and had no affirmative defense(s) for doing so. Ultimately, no exigent or otherwise mitigating evidence exists in the record in favor of Respondent. Notably, Respondent’s absence from this administrative proceeding is also a factor in aggravation, as it evinces the licensee’s unwillingness to be regulated by the Registrar.

Because Complainant has established Respondent’s statutory violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(1), 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a), 32-1154(A)(16), and 32-1154(A)(22) by a preponderance of the evidence, Complainant has also established cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s ROC License No. 351975.

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

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In consideration of the foregoing conduct,

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that five (5) days after the effective date of the Final Order in this matter ROC License No. 351975, Specialty Residential R-62 Minor Home Improvements contracting license, be revoked by the Registrar.

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, December 31, 2025.

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]

Lou Jackson, Complainant

8924 W. Alex Ave.

Peoria, AZ 85382

[email redacted]

Better Way Homes, LLC, Respondent

535 W. Oxbow Trl. Lot 5

Payson, AZ 855411

[email redacted]

Better Way Homes, LLC, Respondent

1000 N. Beeline Hwy., Ste. 1010

Payson, AZ 85541

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff