ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2026A-00491-CPA-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Arizona Registrar of Contractors,

COMPLAINANT,

Vernon Scott Pearsall,

DBA: Vernon Scott Pearsall,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2026A-00491-CPA-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 25, 2026

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin represented Complainant Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Respondent Vernon Scott Pearsall appeared on his own behalf. Investigator Brandon Smith appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ Exhibits 1 through 11

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

On or about August 18, 2025, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) received an Unlicensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) from Sandra Walters (“Ms. Walters”) against Vernon Scott Pearsall (“Respondent”), indicating that she was unaware of Respondent’s unlicensed status until “midway through the project.” Ms. Walters contracted with Respondent for Respondent to construct a shed and a walking deck over the shed, and enclose an existing covered patio at her home. The Complaint further indicated that Ms. Walters had paid Respondent $9,068.82 via Zelle payments.

On or about December 15, 2025, Ms. Walters sent the Registrar an email detailing her interactions with Respondent, and the timeline of events. Ms. Walters indicated the following in pertinent part:

In March of 2025, I spoke with [Respondent] to see if he, or another contractor that he knows might be interested in taking on my "patio room" project and after I showed him the area, and what I had envisioned, he said yes, that he could build it. He drew up some plans of the outside of the building to make sure that we had the same thing in mind and said he could draw up the plans to be submitted for a permit. With those drawings he also had dimensions of the building drawn up, but he never gave me those drawings. Not knowing, I just figured he was going to submit those drawings with the permit application.

The plan was for him to construct a room, mostly under an existing patio roof/cover, to be used as a work room for projects. As things progressed there were water leaks in the area that was not covered by the existing patio roof and there were many, many nails that were put through from the outside that didn't hit their intended targets for support. He and his son, Damien Pearsall, constructed a small deck on the part of the building that was not under the existing roof and a stairway to access it that apparently were not even close to meeting the code regulations. Also, the windows that I bought and they installed had no flashing and the supports were not adequate either.

The payment agreement was that I was to pay him and his adult son $25/hour each and pay for the materials. They sent me a hand drawn list of hours worked weekly and rarely gave me the receipts for materials purchased without me having to ask two or three times. [Respondent] estimated the job would take about 2 1 /2 months.

As we talked over the next couple of weeks [Respondent] told me that he was a licensed contractor. Then in a later conversation he told me he had let his license lapse because he had been doing maintenance on apartment buildings for 25 years. One afternoon he said to his son Damien who was working on my project with him that maybe he should get his license renewed and his son replied that that would be a good idea and then later during the project he told me that he had never had a license.

On or about January 14, 2026, the Registrar issued to Respondent a Cease & Desist Order and a Civil Citation for violating A.R.S. § 32-1151, with a civil penalty in the amount of $1,500.00 for the violation. Respondent requested a hearing on the charged violation.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing. A hearing was held on March 25, 2026. The Registrar presented the testimony of Investigator Brandon Smith and submitted eleven exhibits. Respondent testified on his own behalf.

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Smith conducted interviews with Ms. Walters and Respondent.

Ms. Walters reiterated the information set forth in her December 2025 email to Investigator Smith. Ms. Walters also informed Investigator Smith that the City of Prescott Valley was alerted to the project by a neighbor. According to Ms. Walters, the project required a building permit and her neighbor “turned her in for not having one.” The city placed a Stop Work Order on the project and required her to disassemble the work immediately.

Investigator Smith observed and photographed what remained of the project after A2Z Property Investments, LLC (“A2Z”), a licensed contractor, was retained to demolish what Respondent constructed. Investigator Smith indicated in his investigative report that “the overall workmanship . . . was less than elementary in skill level and nowhere near to ROC minimum workmanship standards or International Building Code Standards.”

Ms. Walters provided a report dated November 13, 2025, from the City of Prescott Valley Building Department, outlining the deficiencies with Respondent’s work and the building code violations.

Ms. Walters also submitted a letter from A2Z, in which William Grace, A2Z’s Qualifying Party, stated:

I was hired on October 29, 2025, to demo the structure that had been done at the above address.

I have been a licensed General Contractor, Residential and Commercial, for over 20 years and this is probably the worst, unsafe, and poor workmanship I’ve seen in years and an absolute waste of materials, not even counting the amount of money that this Homeowner got taken for. The Person or Persons responsible for this should have to reimburse the Homeowner all that was charged, as well as all materials wasted, PLUS demo cost.

This work could have caused a loss of life as well as property damage.

Ms. Walters agreed to pay Respondent and his son $25.00 each per hour to perform the work. The total amount paid for labor was $9,337.38, and materials totaled $3,769.05 which Ms. Walters paid to Home Depot.

Respondent has not returned any of the money paid by Ms. Walters.

Regarding Respondent’s lack of licensure, Ms. Walters told Investigator Smith that early on in the project, when they were negotiating, Ms. Walters asked Respondent if he was licensed. Ms. Walters stated that Respondent responded by telling her that he had “30 years of experience and that he was a licensed contractor.” Ms. Walters also stated that she “challenged” Respondent later in the project, and Respondent stated that he “used to do maintenance on apartment buildings and used to have a license, but he let the license go.” According to Ms. Walters, shortly after she was told Respondent let his license lapse, Respondent finally admitted that he was never licensed.

Investigator Smith interviewed Respondent who stated “I wasn’t in charge of anything, she just told me what she wanted to do and I just did it.” Respondent told Investigator Smith that he did not contract with Ms. Walters, he “just worked for her by the hour.” Respondent also stated that Ms. Walters “paid by the hour and she called the shots, I was just helping her, that’s all.” Investigator Smith asked Respondent, “Did you ever tell [Ms. Walters] you were a licensed contractor?” to which Respondent replied, “I never did, I told her I used to be a maintenance man over at A1, but not a licensed contractor. I know better than that.” Investigator Smith asked Respondent regarding the scope of work performed and Respondent stated, “[a]t first she wanted a she shed then she started adding to it.” When asked about the stairs leading to the roof, Respondent admitted to building those “because [Ms. Walters] asked him to.”

Investigator Smith testified that Respondent does not qualify for any of the exemptions under A.R.S. § 32-1121.

Respondent testified that he did not refund any monies to Ms. Walters because he “was working for her” and that Ms. Walters was acting in the capacity of an “owner/builder.” Respondent asserted he was an employee, however, provided no evidence of such, such as tax records or workers compensation information. Respondent testified that Ms. Walters “knew he was not licensed,” “knew she was to get a permit,” and asserted that he is the “victim” in this matter.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

The Registrar bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses and factors in mitigation of the penalty 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.”

A.R.S. § 32-1151 prohibits contracting without a license, providing in relevant part:

It is unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization, or a combination of any of them, to engage in the business of, submit a bid or respond to a request for qualification or a request for proposals for construction services as, act or offer to act in the capacity of or purport to have the capacity of a contractor without having a contractor's license in good standing in the name of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization as provided in this chapter, unless the person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization is exempt as provided in this chapter. Evidence of securing a permit from a governmental agency or the employment of a person on a construction project shall be accepted in any court as prima facie evidence of existence of a contract.

A.R.S. § 32-1121(A)(14) sets forth a “handyman’s exemption” to licensure requirements and provides in relevant part:

Any person other than a licensed contractor engaging in any work or operation on one undertaking or project by one or more contracts, for which the aggregate contract price, including labor, materials and all other items, but excluding any electrical fixture or appliance that was designed by the manufacturer, that is unaltered, unchanged or unmodified by any person, that can be plugged into a common household electrical outlet using a two-pronged or three-pronged electrical connector or that has internal batteries that do not exceed twelve volts in a single, series or parallel configuration and that does not use any other form of energy, including natural gas, propane or other petroleum or gaseous fuel, to operate or is attached by a nail, screw or other fastening device to the frame or foundation of any residential structure, is less than $1,000. The work or operations that are exempt under this paragraph shall be of a casual or minor nature. This exemption does not apply:

In any case in which the performance of the work requires a local building permit.

. . . .

A.R.S. § 32-1121(A)(5) sets forth an “owner/builder exemption” to licensure requirements and provides in relevant part: “[o]wners of property who improve such property or who build or improve structures or appurtenances on such property and who do the work themselves, with their own employees or with duly licensed contractors . . .”

The credible evidence presented at hearing established that Respondent’s actions did not fall within the “handyman exemption” nor did this project qualify as an owner/builder project and Respondent was not an “employee” of Ms. Walters.

A.R.S. § 32-1166.01(B)(4) authorizes the Registrar to assess a civil penalty against a person who has been found to have contracted without a license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1151 of “at least $200 for each violation but not more than $2,500 for multiple violations committed on the same day.”

The credible, substantial, and probative evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1151.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar affirm the finding that Respondent Vernon Scott Pearsall violated A.R.S. § 32-1151.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Registrar affirm its decision to assess against Respondent Vernon Scott Pearsall a civil penalty of $1,500.00 for contracting without a license.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the $1,500.00 civil penalty be paid by Respondent Vernon Scott Pearsall in certified funds to the Registrar on or before the effective date of the Final Order in this matter.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, April 1, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Mona Baskin

Assistant Attorney General

[email redacted]

Vernon Scott Pearsall

DBA: Vernon Scott Pearsall

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff