ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09796-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
R & A Spray Foam Roofing, LLC,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Magnolia Home Builder, PLLC,
License No. ROC 322613,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-09796-NPC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 30, 2026
APPEARANCES: Robert Downs appeared on behalf of Complainant R & A Spray Foam Roofing, LLC. Respondent Magnolia Home Builder, PLLC failed to appear.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural History
The hearing of this matter was initially scheduled to convene on January 13, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. On the date and time set for hearing, Christine Miller appeared on behalf of Magnolia Home Builder, PLLC (“Respondent”). R & A Spray Foam Roofing, LLC (“Complainant”) did not appear, notwithstanding a fifteen-minute grace period. Following the grace period, Ms. Miller made a motion to dismiss the Complaint filed in this matter.
On January 13, 2026, at 12:27 p.m., Complainant’s representative, Robert Downs, called the Office of Administrative Hearings to state that “he was not able to attend this hearing because he was stuck in the virtual waiting room.” Given the circumstances and good cause appearing, the hearing in the above-entitled matter was re-set to March 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., via Google Meet.
On March 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., Robert Downs appeared on behalf of Complainant. Respondent did not appear, notwithstanding a fifteen-minute grace period. Following the grace period, Mr. Downs presented Complainant’s case.
However, on March 11, 2026, Ms. Miller filed a Motion to Continue that stated the following:
I respectfully request that the hearing be continued and rescheduled due to a genuine calendaring error on my part.
The hearing scheduled for March 10, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. was a rescheduled date that had been awarded to the complainant after they were unable to attend the original January 2026 hearing date. When I received the notice of the rescheduled hearing, I inadvertently recorded the date in my calendar as March 12, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. instead of the correct date of March 10.
As a result of this honest mistake, I unfortunately did not appear for the March 10 hearing. This was not intentional in any way, and I sincerely apologize to the Court and the parties for the oversight.
I have every intention of fully participating in this matter and respectfully request the opportunity to appear and present my position. I believe allowing the matter to be reset would serve the interests of fairness and allow the case to be addressed on its merits.
This request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. I respectfully ask that the Court grant a continuance and reschedule the hearing at the Court’s convenience.
Given the circumstances and good cause appearing, on March 16, 2026, the Tribunal issued to the parties an Order Granting Continuance and Setting Hearing Via Google Meet. The Order advised the parties that the hearing in the above-entitled matter was continued to April 30, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., and would be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet and provided the Google Meet information in order to participate in the hearing either by telephone or by video. The Order was sent to Respondent’s email address of record that has been used throughout these proceedings. The Order also advised of the following:
“THE PARTIES MUST USE THE GOOGLE MEET INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ORDER” and that “No further continuances will be granted absent exigent circumstances.”
On the date and time set for hearing, Robert Downs appeared on behalf of Complainant. Respondent failed to appear notwithstanding proper notice and a grace period provided. The hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Hearing Evidence
Respondent is the holder of License Number 322613 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
Complainant filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging that Respondent had failed to pay Complainant the sum of $11,500.00 for the roofing installation performed by Complainant at the jobsite located at 2215 North 9th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85927.
The parties were unable to resolve their differences. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent for its alleged violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10).
Mr. Downs testified that the parties contracted on May 29, 2024. The contract price was $18,500.00 and Respondent paid Complainant $7,000.00.
Complainant commenced its work in late August or early September 2024. Mr. Downs explained that the tile had to sit for one month in order for it to acclimate, and then Complainant was compelled to wait to complete its work due to a delay in the completion of the HVAC installation. Complainant ultimately completed its scope of work on December 18, 2024.
The credible evidence presented at hearing established that Complainant performed the work it was contracted to perform.
Mr. Downs testified that he was never contacted by Respondent regarding any issues with Complainant’s work and he has made numerous attempts to contact Respondent for payment to no avail.
Mr. Downs testified that Respondent has been paid in full by the homeowner as the homeowner provided the release forms from their bank showing that Respondent had been paid in full for the roofing and the stucco.
Respondent failed to appear for the hearing, and therefore, did not present any controverting evidence.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is 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.”
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license:
Failure 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.
The evidence established that at the time of the hearing, Respondent owed a total of $11,500.00 for the work performed by Complainant.
Respondent failed to appear, and as such, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it lacked the ability to pay Complainant for the work performed.
Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10) by failing to pay Complainant $11,500.00 for services or materials rendered in connection with Respondent’s contracting business.
Based upon Respondent’s violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(10), grounds exist to impose discipline against Respondent’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar suspend Respondent’s License Number 322613 issued by the Registrar until it has provided to the Registrar, and the Registrar has accepted, documents that establish that it has paid Complainant $11,500.00 in certified funds.
It is further recommended that when and if the Registrar receives and accepts Respondent’s evidence that it has paid Complainant $11,500.00 in certified funds, the Registrar may close the Complaint in Case Number 2025-09796.
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, May 6, 2026.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Magnolia Home Builder, PLLC
[email redacted]
R & A Spray Foam Roofing, LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff