ALJDEC - Licensing

2026A-00137-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Nicki Lee Fowler,

COMPLAINANT

Stangers Landscape and Masonry Inc,

License No. ROC 339944,

RESPONDENT

No. 2026A-00137-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 28, 2026

APPEARANCES: Investigator Heath Richards on behalf of Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Nicki Lee Fowler appeared on behalf of herself. No appearance on behalf of Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the hearing packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Exhibits 1 through 3 admitted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Stangers Landscape and Masonry Inc, (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 339944 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about February 27, 2024, Nicki Lee Fowler (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, installation of Belgard pavers.

On or about January 9, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Heath Richards.

Following a February 2, 2026, jobsite inspection, at which Respondent was not present, Investigator Richards issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated February 3, 2026, 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 Wednesday, February 18, 2026. . . .

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Pavers were installed on the driveway but there was an issue with the quality of the pavers.

Investigator’s Observation: During the Jobsite inspection, the Complainant explained that a manufacturer defect was present in the pavers laid by the Respondent. The Respondent was not present but had confirmed in a previous phone call a manufacturer defect that was to be repaired. The Complainant pointed to areas throughout the project with small white stones embedded in the pavers and large pits the size of a quarter, which the complainant stated had been growing. Both Complainant and Respondent had stated that the manufacturer acknowledged a defect. As a general industry practice, prior to the installation of a product, all inspections and evaluations of the product should be made by the installer. Once an installer has begun installation of a product, they have accepted it, its condition, and its properties. Installation of defective products is not considered workmanship standard. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by appropriate means. Since the Respondent is not appropriately licensed to do this work, the appropriate means will involve the two parties coming to a resolution, which may include having an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work according to the original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, industry standards, local building codes, and manufacturers’ installation instructions.

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent did not comply with the Written Directive. After the compliance deadline expired, Investigator Richards forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on April 28, 2026. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. A March 19, 2026, order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on April 28, 2026.

Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Richards testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Richards testified that some of the pavers were defective and that there were workmanship issues with the work that had been performed.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Richards’ testimony. After Respondent completed the work, Complainant noticed that some of the pavers had surface imperfections. The paver manufacturer conducted an inspection and paid Respondent directly to remove and replace the defective pavers. Complainant contended that Respondent failed to replace the defective pavers and made no attempt whatsoever to rectify the issue. Complainant testified that she paid Respondent in full.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 28, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No.339944 was first issued on August 5, 2022, and was revoked on February 9, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that there were two open complaints, one resolved/settled complaint, and five prior complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.

Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of her right to prosecute her complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

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 Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 339944

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 7, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Stangers Landscape and Masonry Inc.

4889 W. Manatee Drive

[email redacted]

Heath Richards

[email redacted]

Nicki Lee Fowler

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff