ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-09822-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Anthony Pavone,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Dustin Kincade Contracting LLC,

License No. ROC 329659,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-09822-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 31, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Anthony Pavone appeared on his own behalf. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Fagerburg appeared as a witness. Respondent Dustin Kincade Contracting LLC did not appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet).

____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Dustin Kincade Contracting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 329659, KB-2, Dual Residential and Small Commercial, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) in July 2020.

On or about June 2, 2023, the parties entered into a contract for residential construction of a guest house, septic and appropriate grading and drainage. The contract amount was stated as $179,674.47.

On or about September 25, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) against Respondent. The Complaint alleged abandonment and other items, with the last date of work stated to be November 1, 2024, and $40,000.00 having been paid to Respondent.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg (Investigator).

On November 3, 2025, Investigator conducted a Jobsite Inspection and took multiple photographs. Respondent failed to appear for the Jobsite Inspection.

On November 25, 2025, Investigator issued a Written Directive for Respondent to complete corrective work by December 17, 2025. In pertinent part, the Directive stated 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 Wednesday December 17, 2025.

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

Investigator Notes:

1: Upon reviewing the written contract submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is at least 1 of the 9 minimum elements of a contract missing violating ARS §32- 1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract. Specifically #4 and #9. Warning letter issued.

2: The respondent’s ROC 329659 KB-2 Dual Residential & Small Commercial license is currently under disciplinary suspension as of June 9, 2025 and must be resolved prior to resuming or completing the project.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item 1: job was never completed due to contractor not obtaining a permit. $40k deposit was never refunded

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant

acknowledged the drainage culvert installed along the south side of the property was restored to its original condition after the respondent did not complete the project correctly and the culvert cannot be installed any deeper than it currently is due to foundation interference. The complainant stated that the CMU block wall and footer were installed without a permit and the City of Phoenix will not issue a permit for the proposed guest house. See P (3) thru P (7). On November 25, 2025 during a phone

conversation with the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department I was informed that corrections were requested prior to issuing a permit for the guest house and a permit for the grading, drainage and a septic system must be applied for and issued by the Maricopa County Planning & Development Department. Prior to resuming

or completing the project the respondent shall resolve the disciplinary suspension, obtain a permit from the Maricopa County Planning & Development Department for the grading, drainage and septic system and provide any required corrections and documentation to the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, obtain a permit for the guest house, pass all inspections and complete the project per contract or

resolve the matter by other appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (1) (Abandonment), ARS § 32-1154 (A) (2) (B) Departure from or disregard of a building code, ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Additional Requirements:

The respondent shall submit a sample copy of a revised contract to this investigator that includes all 9 minimum elements of a contract over $1,000.00 per ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract by the compliance date listed above.

On December 22, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1)

Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)

Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state of any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.

Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a)

Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Charge :4 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158

Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Charge :5 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.

Respondent filed an Answer to the Citation on January 6, 2026, indicating that some work had been done by other contractors, that the culvert was reinstalled, and that the City subsequently had not approved the casita project.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing and issued a Notice of Hearing.

The hearing date was continued to allow for the Investigator’s appearance. On March 12, 2026, OAH issued an ORDER continuing the matter to March 31, 2026; the ORDER advised the parties how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

On the date and at the time set for the continued hearing, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator testified regarding the background in this matter. Investigator explained that Respondent had needed to obtain the permit in order to proceed. Investigator noted that he had issued a warning letter regarding the lack of all statutory elements in Respondent’s contract forms.

Complainant credibly testified regarding the following payments having been made to Respondent: (a) $10,000.00 in cash; $10,000.00 wired to Respondent; and (c) $22,459.31. Complainant testified that his yard was and remained torn up for 18 months and no additional work had been completed.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC license record on April 16, 2026. There is one open case, i.e., the instant matter, two disciplined matters (from 2025), and one resolved matter (February 2026). Respondent’s ROC license is currently suspended.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The copy of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable; the same address and others as found within the administrative record were utilized by OAH to communicate with Respondent. Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).

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. R-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 evidence of record established that Respondent’s actions and work were not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards in that Respondent violated the following applicable provisions as were included in the Registrar’s Citation: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-19-108(A)l A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12, namely A.R.S. § 32-1155; and, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s ROC License No. 329659.

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)(5), 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, April 17, 2026.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

David Fagerburg

[email redacted]

Anthony Pavone

[email redacted]

Dustin Kincade Contracting LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff