ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-11197-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Joanna Wilkins,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Rezcom Builders, LLC

License No. ROC 318078,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-11197-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 15, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Joanna Wilkins appeared on her own behalf, with her husband, Marty Wilkins. Nick Soldo and Paul Soldo appeared on behalf of Respondent Rezcom Builders, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Steven Avila appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Rezcom Builders, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 318078 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

In or about April 2025, Joanna Wilkins (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to construct a pool on Complainant’s property. The contract price was $69,500.00.

On or about October 27, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Steven Avila. After a December 1, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Avila issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated December 10, 2025, that provided 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 Friday, January 2, 2026.

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

Complaint Item: 2 - Ruined both neighbors front yards.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the driveway to

the left of the residence was corrected. The neighbor's lawn to the right of the residence had turf installed and the turf was inspected for damage. The turf had damage reflecting the fact that the lawn was driven upon during the construction of the pool. Allegation for damage to the lawn of the residence to the right of the homeowner's residence is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 3 - Blocked umbrella sleeve on top step of pool.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection an attempt to

inspect the depth of the umbrella sleeve was made. The cap on the umbrella pool could not be removed by the investigator. Therefore, the depth of the umbrella holder could not be inspected. Although the sleeve depth could not be inspected the umbrella holder should have proper function and use. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall ensure proper function of the umbrella hold cap and adequate depth for use.

Complaint Item: 4 - Two broken pool nozzles.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were two

pool nozzles brought forth. One which a portion of the nozzle had come off and a second in which the adjustment of the nozzle was functioning. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 1 - Continental refused to come back and fill trenches.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the homeowner

had the issues addressed by a second contractor and no additional issues

appeared to remain. It was explained to the homeowner that any

compensation for the work would have to be addressed through a separate avenue as the Registrar does not have the jurisdiction for financial compensation.

Complaint Item: 5 - Still need more dirt to cover trenches.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the homeowner

had the issues addressed by a second contractor and no additional issues

appeared to remain. It was explained to the homeowner that any

compensation for the work would have to be addressed through a separate avenue as the Registrar does not have the jurisdiction for financial compensation.

Complaint Item: 6 - We have paid $1,700 so far and yard still needs much more work.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the trenches had been repaired and no additional work remained.

Complaint Item: 7 - Unpaid bills to contractors.

Investigator’s Observation: Non-payment of sub-contractors does through a separate avenue within the registrar and not the licensed complaint route. Any licensed sub-contractors can file a non-payment complaint and this can be addressed through the proper channels.

On January 21, 2026, Investigator Avila conducted a Compliance Inspection at which both parties were present. Investigator Avila’s Compliance Jobsite General Notes state: “At the time of the inspection both parties stated that no work was performed prior to the written directive expiring. Access was requested after the expiration of the written directive but work not allowed.”

Thereafter, Investigator Avila forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Avila testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive and Compliance Jobsite General Notes. Investigator Avila testified that neither party requested an extension of the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive. Investigator Avila further testified that a complainant is under no legal obligation to allow a contractor access to perform repair work after the expiration of a Written Directive. Investigator Avila opined that the items ordered to be corrected in the Written Directive could have been “easily rectified.”

Complainant testified that Respondent “showed up” at her home on Sunday, January 18, 2026, and she advised Respondent that the Written Directive had expired and she would no longer allow access to her property. On Monday, January 19, 2026, Respondent returned to Complainant’s home ignoring her admonition not to return. Complainant expressed her frustration that Respondent proposed to perform corrective work after the expiration of the Written Directive, on a Sunday and on a holiday.

Nick Soldo testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Soldo acknowledged that there were “hiccups during the process” and contended that the repair items require “small repairs” and one day of work. Mr. Soldo blamed the timing of the Written Directive occurring during the holiday season for Respondent’s non-compliance, stating “the holidays messed them up.”

Paul Soldo testified that Respondent is a multi-million-dollar company and that Respondent would not risk its license for repairs that would have cost $75.00. Mr. Soldo testified that Respondent was met with hostility from Complainant and that is the reason the repairs have not been made.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 22, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 318078 was first issued on February 21, 2018, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, one resolved/settled complaint, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations 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.”

The evidence established that all of Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Although the holidays fell within the period of the Written Directive, Respondent could have, but did not request an extension of the deadline, and the Written Directive was issued on December 10, 2025, providing time prior to the holidays to perform repairs that Respondent indicated would have taken one day to accomplish. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 318078 for a period of two (2) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 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 (30) 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)(7), 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 28, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Rezcom Builders, LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Joanna Wilkins

[email redacted]

Steven Avila

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff