ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-12036-NPC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Across The Board Woodworking LLC,

COMPLAINANT

v.

All Lines Construction, LLC,

License No. ROC 333001,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-12036-NPC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 9, 2026

APPEARANCES: Deanne Grovers appeared on behalf of Complainant Across the Board Woodworking LLC. Sune Winpanley appeared on behalf of Respondent All Lines Construction LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-3 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On December 23, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the matter for hearing on February 9, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

On November 17, 2025, Complainant, Across the Board Woodworking LLC filed a complaint against Respondent All Lines Construction LLC alleging that Respondent owed Complainant monies in the amount of $22,226.00 on four unpaid invoices.

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. 333001 issued by ROC and provided an Answer on December 2, 2025.

Complainant provided cabinets on projects for which Respondent was the general contractor.

Ms. Groves testified that two of the invoices had been resolved, and the only two remaining were invoice 4301 (the Aurich project), and invoice 4276 (the Mathiason project).

As to the Aurich project, Ms. Groves testified that there was now a balance due of $2,797. As to the Mathiason project, Ms. Groves testified that there was $9,000.00 due on the project. Mr. Groves testified that this project was completed fully as to the scope agreed upon by an employee of Respondent. Ms. Groves also testified that it was not until hearing in which Respondent objected to the invoiced amount.

Ms. Winpanley testified that as to the Aurich project, Respondent refused to pay until the job was completed, as it was her understanding that there were no drawers installed as per the homeowner. As to the Mathiason project, Ms. Winpanley testified that the project was never agreed to for that amount per the “itel report”, the project was repairable at an estimated cost of $12,475.00, and not the $15,558.00 that was invoiced. Because of this, Ms. Winpanley testified that only $3,332.00 was owed.

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 $2,797,00 has been due and owed since September 19, 2025, for the Aurich project. As to the Mathiason project, Ms. Winpanley admitted that at least $3,322.00 was owed. Complainant did not provide persuasive evidence or testimony to demonstrate that the agreed upon price was $15,558.00. Thus, at least in this forum, the tribunal declines to find that the parties agreed to the same.

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 $6,119.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS RECOMMENDED that All Lines Construction, LLC’s license number 333001 be suspended until the Registrar receives proof that it has paid to Across the Board Woodworking LLC $6,119.00.

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, February 23, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

All Lines Construction, LLC

[email redacted]

Across The Board Woodworking LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff