ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09179-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-17
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Richard Ariagno,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Crossroads Home Improvements LLC
License No. ROC 347744,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-09179-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 2, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Richard Ariagno appeared on his own behalf. Investigator John Peru appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Crossroads Home Improvements LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 347744 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about September 8, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel residence in Surprise, Arizona.
On or about September 8, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru. The jobsite inspection was performed on October 2, 2025.
Investigator Peru then issued a Written Directive on or about on October 2, 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 Friday, October 17, 2025.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Abandonment of addition.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
At the time of this inspection, I observed a partially demolished rear yard patio structure. The complainant stated that the contract was initiated on 9/6/2024.The complainant stated that a deposit of $12,333.00 was issued to the respondent on 9/6/2024. The scope of work was in regards to a built-in addition, which would require architectural plans approved/permit issued by the Municipality Building Dept. The complainant explained that the respondent encountered many delays in the planning/approval process. To date, the respondent has failed to pull/obtain the permit, despite the plans being reviewed/approved (as of 7/25/25). This allegation has been substantiated. Additionally, due to the current state of the project, there are potential safety hazards and Progressive Deterioration factors to be considered.
REF: (JSI PICS).
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)
. . .
On October 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about November 5, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about November 21, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 30, 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 granted a continuance and issued an Order continuing the matter on November 25, 2025, and sent it to the parties’ email and mailing 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 Peru testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings. Investigator Peru also testified that there was no representative from Respondent at the jobsite inspection, and that he never heard from Respondent during the corrective work period.
Complainant testified that he paid $12,333.00 as a down payment, and that Respondent “tore apart his house without a permit”. Complainant testified further that Respondent then attempted to request more money to finish the project and Complainant refused.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 17, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 347744 was first issued on September 20, 2023, and was revoked as of January 21, 2026. The License record reflected that there were thirteen open cases, one of which was the present case, seven disciplined cases and one resolved 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 there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), as Respondent took a down payment and commenced demolition on Complainant’s house without obtaining a permit, then refused to complete the work without additional payment.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established contracted work 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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 347744.
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, February 17, 2026.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
John Peru
[email redacted]
Crossroads Home Improvements LLC
[email redacted]
Richard Ariagno
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff