ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09751-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-05
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Get Right Flooring LLC
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Brewer Restoration Enterprises Inc,
License No. ROC 262668,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-09751-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 16, 2025
APPEARANCES: Jose Cortez appeared on behalf of Get Right Flooring, LLC (Complainant). John Brewer appeared on behalf of Brewer Restoration Enterprises, Inc. (Respondent).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibit A: The hearing packet of the Registrar of Contractors and Respondent’s Exhibit 1.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On November 12, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-entitled matter for hearing on December 16, 2025.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the complaint and citation issued in the above-entitled matter allege that Respondent failed to pay monies in excess of $750 for materials or services rendered in connection with Respondent’s operations as a contractor, as described in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
A hearing was held on December 16, 2025.
At hearing, Jose Cortez, Complainant’s owner, testified on behalf of Complainant. John Brewer, Respondent’s owner, testified on behalf of Respondent.
Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar alleging that Respondent failed to pay Complainant the balance of $1,645.20 when payment became due, for the installation and leveling of hardwood floor in a home.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s licensed alleging that Respondent failed to pay for monies in excess of $750 that became due in connection with Respondent’s work as a contractor, as described in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(10).
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
Testimony of Jose Cortez
Cortez’s brother, also an employee of Complainant, installed the flooring, Respondent told Cortez’s brother to leave the job after the installation. The following day, Respondent requested that Cortez come to work on the floors. However, Cortez was out of town and failed to go to the job-site. Cortez complained at hearing that when Respondent would call him to the job-site, Respondent would only give Cortez 30 minutes notice. Therefore, Cortez stated that he did not return to work on the project until three months after Cortez’s brother last worked on the floors.
Cortez admitted that there were tape marks on the floor and that the color was fading in the kitchen. However, Cortez argued that Respondent caused the tape marks by failing to provide reasonable access to the job-site for three months. Cortez stated a floor will be damaged if blue tape remains on the floor for more than 48 hours. Cortez alleged that the flooring supplied by Respondent was defective. Cortez alleged that if there is 80% of glue coverage on a floor, the installation is acceptable. Cortez contended that the 80% of the floor was covered in glue, however, Cortez provided no other corroborating evidence other than his own statement.
Testimony of John Brewer
Cortez inspected the flooring provided by Respondent. Cortez did not express concern about the quality of the flooring. Cortez told John Brewer that he would perform the work for the project. The owner of the home was not satisfied with construction because there were hollow sounds when he tapped the floor with a metal pole. Brewer alleged that Complainant did not put up protection when constructing the home and damaged the walls with paint.
After Brewer discussed the hollow floors with Cortez, Cortez told Brewer that the floors were hollow because Cortez’s brother did not use a sufficient amount of adhesive. During the hearing, Cortez did not dispute this statement. Respondent submitted into evidence Exhibit 1 that shows that the manufacturer confirmed that the flooring was not defective.
Cortez finished the flooring and completed it approximately three months after Cortez’s brother was asked to leave the job-site. After the installation, there were still drilled holes in different places in the wood. Brewer claimed that a workmanship claim was filed with the Registrar related to Complainant’s floor installation and that the inspector came out and determined that the flooring was not properly installed and that the homeowner could hire a second contractor to perform the work.
I find Brewer’s testimony to be credible.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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.")
5. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to
promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).
6. 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).
7. Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A) provides that:
The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: .... 10. Failure by a licensee or agent or official of a 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.
8. Complainant failed to meet its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the contract balance of $1,645.20 became due for the floor installation. Complainant failed to sufficiently rebut Respondent’s credible testimony and written evidence that the installation was not performed properly.
10. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A)(10) as alleged.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2025A-09751 is dismissed.
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, January 5, 2026.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Get Right Flooring LLC
[email redacted]
Brewer Restoration Enterprises Inc
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff