ALJDEC - Licensing

2026A-00406-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ivy Mac,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

SOUTHWEST HOME REPAIR INC.,

License No. ROC 361823,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2026A-00406-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 2, 2026 at 9:00am

APPEARANCES: Complainant Ivonne Machado, aka: Ivy Mac, appeared on her own behalf. Joshua Callison appeared on behalf of Respondent Southwest Home Repair, Incorporated with observer Paul Lily. Investigator Gregory Johndrow appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibits 3, 5 through 11.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Southwest Home Repair, Incorporated (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 361823, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on October 20, 2025. The license was classified as a CR-37 Plumbing which entails, in part, the installation, alteration, and repair of all plumbing when performed solely within property lines and not on public easements or right-of-ways.

Respondent came to know Ivonne Machado (aka: Ivy Mac, “Complainant”) by performing appliance repair at her home residence through a home warranty company. Through discussions about Complainant’s roof needing to be replaced, Complainant hired Respondent.

On or about October 27, 2025, Complainant entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a roof replacement at her home residence located in Tucson, Arizona. The contract was for the total amount of $14,000.00 and Complainant paid Respondent $7,000.00. The contract did not include Respondent’s license number, no estimated completion date, and no information regarding Registrar of Contractor rights.

Respondent subcontracted with an associate licensed roofer (“Roofer”) to perform Complainant’s roof job. The Roofer met with Complainant to pick out colors/samples, there was a back and forth, and eventually a few standard roofing materials were purchased with the $7,000.00 initial deposit.

On or about January 12, 2026, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant which stated the following, “Home roof replacement at 1334 W Via Rio Blanco Tucson AZ was never started. Roof material was never delivered.”

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow.

Investigator Johndrow did not conduct a jobsite inspection because no work commenced at the property.

On January 27, 2026, Investigator Johndrow issued a Warning Letter to Respondent because the contract drafted for the roofing project was missing at least one of the required elements.

On January 27, 2026, a second Warning Letter, was issued by Investigator Johndrow to Respondent due to operating beyond the scope of Respondent’s CR-37 Plumbing license.

In addition, on January 27, 2026, Respondent returned the $7,000.00 to Complainant.

Investigator Johndrow did not issue a Written Directive.

On January 29, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16).

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Johndrow testified that all funds were returned to Complainant and this matter no longer classifies as a job abandonment. Investigator Johndrow reiterated that Respondent entered into a contract that was beyond the scope of its license. Joshua Callison, Respondent co-owner, testified that Respondent had no intention of performing the roof work themselves and did not understand that Respondent could not hire a subcontractor to perform the roofing work.

Complainant testified that she did receive her $7,000 back but that it took a bit of time before Respondent returned the money. Complainant testified that the roof to her home was “already damaged” and that was the reason she needed to get a replacement roof. Complainant argued that Roofer removed 52 shingles and “ripped off” the fascia. Mr. Callison testified that Roofer did not remove any pieces off the roof. Mr. Callison argued that Roofer and Complainant could not come to an agreement about the materials and nothing would have been “ripped” off the roof without an agreement to materials. Investigator Johndrow and Mr. Callison both pointed out that Complainant stated in her complaint that work “never started.”

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 2, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 361823 was Active and there was one open complaint.

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 means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

In this case, the evidence failed to establish that Respondent abandoned the job. The weight of the evidence established that the roofing job did not commence, money was exchanged, however, all money was returned to Complainant. Complainant failed to establish that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Therefore, Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12).

Respondent clearly entered into a contract beyond the scope of its license. However, the credible weight of the evidence established that Respondent did not knowingly contract beyond its scope. Respondent’s initial license was issued on October 20, 2025, and they entered into the roofing contract, only seven days later with Complainant. The evidence established that Respondent made a mistake entering into a roofing contract under License Number ROC 361823 with Complainant and they received a warning letter from Investigator Johndrow. As such, the evidence has not established that Respondent knowingly violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16).

Furthermore, there was no credible evidence that Roofer removed fascia and shingles from Complainant’s roof.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall not suspend Respondent’s License No. ROC 361823.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, April 22, 2026.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

SOUTHWEST HOME REPAIR INC.

1700 E River Rd #66074

Tucson, AZ 85718

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Gregory Johndrow

[email redacted]

Ivonne Machado

1334 W Via Rio Blanco

Tucson, AZ 85714

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff