ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2022A-10977-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Judith Cosme AND Jorge L. Cosme

COMPLAINANTS,

v.

Designer Tile Inc

License No. ROC 135176,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2022A-10977-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 3, 2025

APPEARANCES: Judith Cosme and Jorge L. Cosme (hereinafter “Complainants”) appeared on behalf of themselves. Gordon Bueler, Esq. appeared on behalf of Designer Tile, Inc. (hereinafter “Respondent”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Exhibits 1 through 18 offered by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “ROC” or “Registrar”).

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about May 9, 2022, Complainants and Respondent entered into a

a tile installation contract.

2. On or about November 30, 2022, Complainants filed a complaint with the ROC against Respondent’s license.

3. The ROC Investigator assigned the complaint to Steve Fultz, an Investigator for the Registrar.

4. Investigator Fultz completed a jobsite inspection.

5. On or about January 23, 2023, the ROC issued a Directive to Respondent. The January 23, 2023 Directive provided, in relevant part, 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 February 24th 2023.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1 - Grout is disappearing in every room

Investigator’s Observation: The grout was soft and not applied properly.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 2 - Soft grout in every room

Investigator’s Observation: Grout not installed properly.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 4 - Lippage in every room

Investigator’s Observation: There were a few locations noted that have lippage issues. All orange marked locations need to be addressed.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 6 - Chip and cracked grout every room

Investigator’s Observation: Locations were noted showing chipped and cracked tile installed in the home.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 8 - Concrete on aggregate front door and driveway

Investigator’s Observation: This needs to be addressed.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 13 - Tile was not put Under the dishwasher which we talked about. There is still left over tile under the dishwasher.

Investigator’s Observation: The tile under the Dishwasher had not been completed.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 14 - Master bath and hallway bath tile has not been completed

Investigator’s Observation: These areas had not been completed.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 15 - Formal dining room grout is going over the edge of the tile. White thin set also is on the grout and tile

Investigator’s Observation: This area needs to be addressed.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

6. On or about February 2, 2023, Investigator Fultz issued an Amended Written Directive to Respondent that left the due date the same, but added the following compliance item:

Compliance Item: 5 - UN even floor can be seen at base boards every room

Investigator’s Observation: The floor isn't level. There are some issues with base boards and the gaps. This will need to be addressed

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

7. On February 27, 2023 the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license. Through the Citation, the ROC alleged that Respondent may have violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3)(specifically, Ariz. Admin. Code section R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(22).

8. Respondent filed an answer to the Citation.

9. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter “OAH”) for an evidentiary hearing.

10. A hearing was held on May 9, 2023

11. On May 23, 2023, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Decision concluding that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1154(A)(3) and (22).

12. On June 12, 2023, the ROC issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order of Default adopting the Recommended Decision and imposing discipline on Respondents license.

13. On November 5, 2024, the ROC received Complainants’ request for a payout from the recovery fund. The total amount of Complainants’ contract with Respondent was $23,334.00. The amount left owing on Complainants’ contract with Respondent was $1,394.00.

. 14. Complainants received a payout from Respondent’s bond company in the amount of $4,250 for Respondent’s poor work.

15. The ROC considered a bid to repair Respondent’s deficient work from POULCON LLC the amount of $38,000.00 to calculate Complainants’ damages.

16. Complainants’ damages were equal to the repair costs in the amount of $38,000 less the amount left owing on the contract in the amount of $1,394.00. Complainants’ damages were equal to $36,606.00. The maximum individual award from the fund is $30,000.

17. The ROC notified Complainants that the ROC would issue a fund award in the amount of $30,000.00 to Complainants.

18. Respondent requested a hearing regarding the payout.

19. The matter was referred to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

20. On August 28, 2025, the ROC issued a Notice of Hearing setting

the above-captioned matter for hearing on October 3, 2025, at the OAH in Phoenix, Arizona.

21. A hearing was held on October 3, 2025.

22. At hearing, Complainants testified on behalf of themselves and presented the testimony of Mark Poulton. The ROC presented the testimony of ROC Legal Assistant II Meredith Bell. Respondent did not present testimonial or written evidence.

23. Ms. Bell explained that the bid from POULCON LLC appropriately addressed items listed in the Directive. Mr. Poulton explained that the cost to repair Respondent’s deficient work was substantial for many reasons, including, but not limited to dust containment, the removal and replacement of tile, the installation of very large plant tile, floor leveling, and remedial work throughout the home.

24. I find Mr. Poulton’s testimony to be credible.

25. Respondent contended that the recovery fund amount was excessive.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1132(A) provides that “[a]n award from the fund is limited to the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of the contractor's violation but shall not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines. . . .” Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect 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.” 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.”

After review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the award provided by the Fund is an accurate reflection of Complainants’ actual damages.

The award appears to properly remedy the workmanship and abandonment violations for which Respondent was responsible. In the absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence that the bid utilized was excessive, the Tribunal finds that the bid was, in fact, appropriate.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainant receive a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $30,000.

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

001

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

-137160-45720000Done this day, October 23, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Judith Cosme AND Jorge L. Cosme,

[email redacted]

Designer Tile Inc

[email redacted]

Gordon S. Bueler, Esq.

Bueler Jones LLP

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff