ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-09260-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MPS FLOORING LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Magnolia Home Builder PLLC,

License No. ROC 322613,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-09260-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 14, 2026.

APPEARANCES: Matthew Sullenger and Cindy Sullenger appeared representing MPS Flooring. Christine Miller appeared representing Magnolia Home Builder PLLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Magnolia Home Builder PLLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 322613 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on November 14, 2018; License No. 322613 was revoked on December 26, 2025.

MPS Flooring, LLC, (Complainant) entered into a contract with Infinite Development, Inc., (Infinite Development) for a job located at 2215 N. 9th Street.

Christine Miller, Manager of record for Respondent, was the point of contact at Infinite Development for Complainant who communicated with Complainant regarding the project scope and provided directions.

On or about September 10, 2025, Complainant filed a Non-Payment Complaint Form (Complaint) with the Registrar, claiming Respondent had failed to pay $11,197.00 for work performed.

On October 21, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation, alleging that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (Ariz. Rev. Stat.) § 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent timely submitted an Answer and Motion to Dismiss on November 5, 2021, claiming Complainant failed to show an agreement between the parties and had identified the wrong Respondent. The Registrar denied the Motion to Dismiss.

Cindy Sullenger testified that the job was completed and invoiced on January 2, 2025. It was the first project that Complainant had done with Respondent. Complaint had communicated with Respondent for nearly a year about payment on the invoice before filing the Complaint.

Cindy Sullenger testified that Complainant understood itself to be working for Infinite Development. While trying to get payment, she realized that Infinite Development did not have an ROC number, and she identified Respondent as a contractor with the same owner and operator as Infinite Development.

Matthew Sullenger testified that no payments had been made on the job in this matter. He offered to repair anything that needed to be repaired.

Complainant performed three other jobs for Respondent after the job at issue in this matter and was paid for those jobs.

Christine Miller argued that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction because Complainant’s agreement was with Infinite Development, not with Respondent. She also argued that there was no contract. She argued that Complainant did not prove that Respondent was the payee, there was no signature, and there was not mutual agreement (the work is not what was discussed and did not match what was in the field). She testified that she has ownership stakes in several companies, including Respondent.

The August 2023 plans identified BC Homes Builders LLC as the contractor.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bore the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bore the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, [f]ailure 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.

In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.

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

Respondent argued that a more formal agreement was required for discipline than the one present in this matter. That contention was incorrect; a writing is not necessary to prove a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) if a violation more likely than not occurred.

Respondent argued that Complainant’s agreement was with Infinite Development, Inc., not Respondent, and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) only applies to licensees, which Infinite Development is not. Complainant confirmed that they understood their agreement to be with Infinite Development, which shared ownership with Respondent.

The hearing record did not establish Infinite Development’s role in the project. It is possible that Infinite Development was acting as an unlicensed arm of Respondent for the purpose of subverting the Registrar’s jurisdiction. It is possible that Infinite Development was engaging in contracting without a license in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1151. It is also possible that Infinite Development was a consultant and responsible to another contractor; however, this appears to be the least likely option because Respondent did not specifically identify a general contractor for the project.

The preponderance of the evidence does not clearly support that Infinite Development was acting as an agent for Respondent. The only evidence in support of concluding Respondent was involved in this contract and project was that Respondent shares ownership with Infinite Development.

Upon review of the evidence submitted in this case, Complainant failed to establish that the monies were due from Respondent in connection with Respondent’s operations as a licensed contractor. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence did not show that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.

Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge did not find grounds to impose discipline against Respondent’s license in this matter.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar dismiss Complainant’s Complaint.

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 3, 2026.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Magnolia Home Builder PLLC

13794 W Waddell Rd Ste 203-190

Surprise AZ, AZ 85379

[email redacted]

MPS FLOORING LLC

17355 West Oberlin Way

Surprise, AZ 85387

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff