ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-12260-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-15
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Geoffrey Wingo,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Gurr Brothers Construction LLC,
ROC License No. 322089,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-12260-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 03, 2026, at 9:00 AM.
APPEARANCES: Geoffrey Wingo (“Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf. Coby Price, Esq. appeared on behalf of Gurr Brothers Construction LLC (“Respondent”) with Travis Carter and Rylan Stewart as witnesses. Patricia Schuette appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing on Contested Case (“Notice of Hearing”), including the Registrar’s attached agency file, Registrar Supplemental Exhibit 1, and Hearing Order issued April 15, 2026, were admitted into the evidentiary record.
_____________________________________________________________________
Having reviewed the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Registrar.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R4-9-117, Administrative Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website. On September 17, 2018, the Registrar issued License No. 322089 for General Dual KB-1 contracting to Respondent. The license is active and in good standing with the Registrar, and has been renewed through September 30, 2026. Bryce Wells Gurr is listed as the Owner on the license. Nathan Lawrence Dick is listed on the license as a Member. Respondent’s address of record for the license is 1710 E. Germann Rd., Ste. 10 Chandler, Arizona 85286. Respondent has a $20,000.00 active surety bond on the license issued by RLI Insurance Company, effective September 30, 2024. The license has not previously been disciplined by the Registrar, but has had six (6) prior complaints settled or otherwise resolved against it. Currently, there is one (1) open complaint against the license which is presumed to be related to the case at bar.
On November 23, 2025, the Registrar received a 5-item complaint from Complainant against Respondent’s License No. 322089 alleging abandonment and poor work regarding a water remediation project. The Registrar designated it Complaint No. 2025-12260 and assigned it to Patricia Schuette (“Investigator Schuette”) for investigation.
On December 02, 2025, Investigator Schuette issued a Request for Information letter to Complainant that instructed him to provide a copy of the parties’ construction contract. Complainant timely complied.
On December 24, 2025, Investigator Schuette issued a Jobsite Inspection Notification Letter to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on January 12, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On December 30, 2025, Complainant submitted a 19-item addendum to Complaint No. 2025-12260 to the Registrar.
On December 30, 2025, Investigator Schuette issued a Notice of Rescheduled Jobsite Inspection to the parties, advising that Investigator Schuette’s inspection of the project was reset to January 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On January 16, 2026, Investigator Schuette inspected the work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was present. Investigator Schuette also reviewed the contract-related correspondence between the parties, and took 55 photographs of the project site. Investigator Schuette derived a total of 24 separate and distinct complaint items from Complaint No. 2025-12260; fifteen (15) of which he substantiated based on his firsthand observations. Specifically, Investigator Schuette determined that complaint items 1-2, 4-7, 10-17 and 23 required Respondent to perform corrective work sufficient to remedy the identified deficiencies, by appropriate means, or be held in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) §§ 32-1154(A)(1) and 32-1154(A)(2)(a).
On January 27, 2026, Investigator Schuette issued a Written Directive from the Registrar (“Directive”) to Respondent due to his substantiation of some of Complainant’s complaint allegation(s) against License No. 322089. Respondent was put on notice that it had until 5:00 p.m. on February 16, 2026, to notify the Registrar of its compliance with the Directive or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1154(E). Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On February 23, 2026, Investigator Schuette issued a Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notice to the parties, advising that he would conduct an inspection of the project on March 04, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On March 04, 2025, Investigator Schuette inspected the corrective work that had been performed on the project to date. Respondent was present. Investigator Schuette took 39 photographs of the project site. Ultimately, Investigator Schuette determined that sufficient work had been performed on substantiated complaint items 2, 6, 10, 12-13, 17, and 25 to satisfy the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards, but that insufficient work had been performed on substantiated complaint items 1, 4-5, 7, 11, and 14-16 to satisfy the Directive.
On March 10, 2026, Investigator Schuette forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s legal department with the issuance of a Citation Recommendation.
On March 11, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation to Respondent for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3); Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), and 32-1154(A)(22). Respondent was given until March 26, 2026, to respond with its Answer or face discipline pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(22) and 32-1155. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.
On March 25, 2026, the Registrar received Respondent’s timely Answer whereby Respondent opined that project delays were due to “miscommunication” and “misunderstandings” between the parties. Respondent argued that Investigator Schuette’s Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes only identified minor items that were “readily correctable” or reflective of “subjective aesthetic preferences” rather than objective workmanship defects. Respondent also accused Complainant of restricting access to the project site prior to the compliance inspection and blamed additional delays on “unresolved payment disputes.”
On April 03, 2026, the Registrar referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on August 21, 2026. Per the April 14, 2026, Notice of Hearing the issues to be determined are whether the Registrar has cause to discipline Respondent’s license based on the following alleged statutory violations:
Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – A.A.C. R4-9-108(A)
Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)
Hearing Evidence
Complainant testified on his own behalf and called Investigator Schuette as a witness. Travis Carter and Rylan Stewart testified on behalf of Respondent. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:
Complainant owns property located at 20853 E. Poco Calle Ct. Queen Creek, Arizona 85142.
On or about January 29, 2024, the parties entered into a $62,269.26 insurance remediation project to restore Complainant’s residential property that was damaged by water on or about November 22, 2023.
Work on the project commenced on or about February 05, 2024, and stopped around February 23, 2025.
On March 25, 2024, Complainant tendered $4,521.60 to Respondent towards their project.
On March 05, 2024, Complainant tendered $13,210.75 to Respondent towards their project.
On March 08, 2024, Complainant tendered $1,462.75 to Respondent towards their project.
On January 25, 2024, Complainant tendered $10,000.00 to Respondent towards their project.
On July 03, 2024, Complainant tendered $12,088.00 to Respondent towards their project.
Between January 27, 2026, and February 16, 2026, License No. 322089 was active and in good standing with the Registrar. During that time Respondent performed corrective work on the underlying project per requirements set forth in the Registrar’s Directive. Respondent did not, however, request an extension of the Directive’s compliance period or enter into a financial settlement agreement with Complaint by February 16, 2026.
At no point in time during the Directive’s compliance period did Respondent allege a denial of access to the project site.
Additional Evidence
Investigator Schuette testified that substantiated complaint item 7 was subdivided into sections A-V. Because subsections L-M and P were duplicates of other complaint items, and T was outside the scope of the parties’ contract, only subsections A-K, N-O, Q-S, and U-V were inspected; all of which were substantiated for correction by Respondent, and none of which were satisfactorily addressed by the expiration of the Directive’s compliance period. At the compliance jobsite inspection Investigator Schuette noted the following:
Not corrected. Still missing crown molding and shelves. The kitchen island still not corrected to include panels as noted in scope. The bar top still has drywall wrap. The vent portion of the hood was moved, shroud connected, drywall repaired, and exterior stucco repaired. The exterior stucco repair is unsightly. The area repaired is very thick and pronounced and texture does not blend existing. Very noticeable. The pantry bracing has been installed but does not appear to be adequate support. The shelves were left unsupported for too long causing the shelving to tip. The out of level shelving was not corrected.
(Emphasis in original.)
Investigator Schuette also testified that financial disputes between licensees and homeowner-complainants do not halt Directive requirements or excuse inaction.
Investigator Schuette also testified that Respondent technically had until February 17, 2026, to comply with the Registrar’s Directive because by February 16, 2026, was an observed holiday. Notice was not provided to either party.
Mr. Carter testified that all outstanding items identified by Investigator Schuette at the compliance jobsite inspection were “punch list items.”
Mr. Stewart testified that all outstanding items identified by Investigator Schuette at the compliance jobsite inspection could have been addressed on February 17, 2026, had Respondent been advised it had the additional date to complete corrective work on the project.
Closing Arguments
In closing, Respondent argued that discipline against License No. 322089 was not warranted because Charge 1 was subjective and sufficient work had been performed to address Charge 2.
Complainant declined to provide a closing argument.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Registrar has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1101 et seq. and 32-1154(A). The matter was properly brought before OAH pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The Registrar may resolve contractual disputes if such resolution in ancillary to its regulatory mission and may penalize a contractor’s license by ordering payment of restitution if a proven statutory violation was not remedied by corrective action.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the Registrar to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he 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.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.”
Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A) requires that “[a] contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] holder of a license may not fail to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or 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. The Registrar has the authority to issue license discipline under this provision, including summary suspension, revocation, or imposing a civil penalty or recovery fund award.
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result.
Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice.
The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.
The substantive facts of record in this matter are clear.
It is clear from the record that the parties had an insurance-backed water remediation project, and that Complainant paid Respondent over 65% of the contract price. It is also clear that Respondent did not complete the underlying project and also did not completely remediate the project in accordance with the Directive or request an extension for compliance. It is further undisputed that the parties did not settle their dispute by the expiration of the Directive’s compliance period.
Therefore, the only remaining issue to address is whether Respondent raised sufficient justification or excuse for failing to appropriately correct substantiated complaint items 1, 4-5, 7 (subsections A-K, N-O, Q-S, and/or U-V), 11, or 14-16 in the case at bar, enter into a settlement agreement with Complainant to satisfy the Directive, or enter ask for an extension of the Directive prior to the expiration of the corrective order’s compliance period. These are affirmative defenses that Respondent bears the burden to establish. Here, the record reflects that Respondent’s arguments and opinions regarding outstanding workmanship items being “subjective aesthetic preferences” or simply “punch list items” are not supported by the record. However, Respondent’s opinion that it could have addressed substantiated complaint items 1, 4-5, 7 (subsections A-K, N-O, Q-S, and/or U-V), 11, and 14-16 on February 17, 2026, had it been provided notice of the extra compliance date it had been afforded in secret has merit.
The Tribunal declines to address whether completion of corrective work in a day was feasible.
Because Respondent has established that it should have been afforded one (1) additional date to comply with the Directive, it follows that the underlying Citation was improperly issued. Therefore, it cannot be held that grounds exist to discipline License No. 322089 based on alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) or 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In light of the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Citation issued March 11, 2026, be quashed.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that an Amended Directive be issued for Complaint No. 2025-12260 that specifically affords Respondent no less than one (1) day to remediate substantiated complaint items 1, 4-5, 7 (subsections A-K, N-O, Q-S, and/or U-V), 11, and 14-16 by appropriate means, and an included advisement to Complainant that safe access to the project site be provided.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that after the expiration of the Amended Directive a Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notice be issued to the parties.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that at the conclusion of the compliance jobsite inspection the assigned investigator either (1) issue a Pencil Cite to the Registrar’s legal department for the issuance of an Amended Citation or (2) close Complaint No. 2025-12260.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, June 15, 2026.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/ Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile:
Tom Cole, Director
c/o Legal Department
Registrar of Contractors
1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Geoffrey Wingo, Complainant
20853 E. Poco Calle Ct.
Queen Creek, AZ 85142
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Coby Price, Esq., Chief Legal Officer
Gurr Brothers Construction LLC, Respondent
1710 E Germann Rd Ste 10
Chandler, AZ 85286
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff