ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS GETS TOUGH ON UNLICENSED CONTRACTORS

In Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s Office v. Mitchell Michael Matykiewicz, Matykiewicz approached property owners soliciting home improvement work to be conducted under his supervision. Over the course of ten months the victims paid Matykiewicz over $52,000. Matykiewicz personally endorsed the victim’s checks and did not pay any of those funds to other individuals. Property owners, complaining of the slow progress and the quality of the work, contacted the Register of Contractors. They then learned that Matykiewicz is not a registered contractor. He was subsequently charged with contracting without a license, which is a Class One Misdemeanor. After a bench trial in the Gilbert Municipal Court, Matykiewicz was found guilty of contracting without a license and ordered to pay over $52,000 in restitution to the victims. Under A.R.S. § 13-603(c) victims of criminal acts are entitled to the full amount of their economic loss. On appeal, Matykiewicz argued that the Municipal Court erred in ordering him to pay restitution in that amount because the record was not adequately developed regarding incompetence or faulty work. The Superior Court vacated the restitution order and remanded the matter to Municipal Court for a new restitution hearing. The State filed a motion for rehearing and after additional proceedings the matter went before the Court of Appeals.

That Court held that Arizona’s law on economic restitution required Matykiewicz to repay the entire amount of money that he accepted from the property owners and not just the “consulting fee” that the Defendant claims he actually earned from the transaction. The Court explained:

Matykiewicz’ alleged decision to subcontract the work he agreed to perform under his contract with the victims was a second causal event that did not impact the underlying criminal act of contracting without a license and therefore, cannot be considered when determining the victim’s economic loss subject to restitution.   

THE FOREGOING IS MERELY A PARTIAL SUMMARY OF THE CASE
AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON AS A LEGAL OPINION.