ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-09484-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

J M Y Inc.,

DBA: Yezco,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Beseler Building Team, LLC

License No. ROC 351900,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-09484-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 8, 2025

APPEARANCES: Robert Yezzi appeared on behalf of Complainant J M Y Inc. Bryan Beseler appeared on behalf of Respondent Beseler Building Team, LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On October 30, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the matter for hearing on December 8, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

On September 16, 2025, Complainant, J M Y Inc. filed a complaint against Respondent, Beseler Building team, LLC alleging that Respondent owed Complainant monies in the amount of $6,500.00.

Through the citation and Notice of Hearing, ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent holds License No. 351900 issued by ROC and timely provided an Answer on October 15, 2025.

Complainant provided floor coatings on the Homeland Brew project for which Respondent was the contractor.

On or about February 24, 2025, the parties entered into a contract for Complainant to perform the work for $2,500.00.

On or about August 25, 2025, Complainant issued an invoice for $7,458.85, which Respondent has not paid.

At hearing, Mr. Yezzi testified that while the original contract was for $2,500.00, he was asked to perform additional work to grind, stain and seal the front entry. He charged $2,000.00 for that, and another $2,000.000 to grind, seal and wax as part of the original work.

Mr. Beseler testified that while the original work was completed, it was not satisfactory for the building owner, thus he, Mr. Yezzi and the building owner all met to discuss making corrections to the project for a total of $4,500.00. This agreement was not in writing. Mr. Beseler then testified that once the project was completed, Complainant placed a lien and Mr. Beseler offered to pay the $4,500.00 for the lien to be released, but Mr. Yezzi refused to follow the same. Mr. Beseler testified that he is still willing and able to pay the $4,500.00 as agreed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Unless otherwise provided by law, a party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement bears the burden of proof; a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

“At a hearing on an agency action to suspend, revoke, terminate or modify on its own initiative material conditions of a license or permit, the agency has the burden of persuasion.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The 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.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").

“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

Among the grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license is a “[f]ailure by [the] licensee . . . to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee’s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent owes Complainant more than $750.00 for materials purchased and work performed in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor. From the credible evidence provided, the tribunal finds that $4,500.00 has been due and owing, and that Respondent has failed to pay without a valid legal excuse. While there was no writing to confirm the change order, it certainly appeared as if Mr. Beseler was under the impression that for a total of $4,500.00, he would get the changed work completed. The tribunal believes this was the final amount agreed upon without additional persuasive evidence provided to the contrary.

Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has violated section 32-1154(A)(10).

Respondent’s license should be suspended until it pays to Complainant $4,500.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Beseler Building team LLC’s license number 351900 be suspended until the Registrar receives proof that it has paid J M Y Inc. $4,500.00.

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 22, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

J M Y Inc.,

DBA: Yezco

[email redacted]

Beseler Building Team, LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff