ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-01316-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-04
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Barbara Ann Tyson,
COMPLAINANT
v.
ATI Restoration LLC
License No. ROC 228730,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-01316-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 19, 2024, January 10, 2025, and February 10, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Barbara Ann Tyson appeared on her own behalf. ATI Restoration LLC was represented by Michael Brown.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 5, 10 through 13, and 15 through 19.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
ATI Restoration LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 228730 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about July 8, 2022, Barbara Ann Tyson (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a restoration project at her home.
On or about February 2, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Johndrow issued a Written Directive to Respondent.
After the initial Written Directive, Complainant identified addendum items that Multiple amended directives were issued to Respondent with the final one dated June 20, 2024, 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 July 8, 2024.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 2: “Replace bathtub”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The tub has a dull finish and there are foreign spots in the finish.
The respondent stated the tub is scheduled to be replaced.
. . . .
Complaint Item 3: “Grout line at bathtub, not acceptable”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The grout joint where the tub meets the tile is concaved and is not uniform with the other grout joints in the bathroom.
. . . .
Complaint Item 4: “Replace or reinstall one piece base in the hall not level”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The baseboard in the hallway to the right side of the bathroom door has been poorly installed and is not level.
. . . .
Complaint Item 11: “Install new veneer in vanity. Plumbing cut outs are way too large and sloppy.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The back panel of the vanity cabinet has unsightly oversized cutouts for the plumbing.
The respondent stated the panel is intended to be replaced.
. . . .
Complaint Item 14: “Grout around new door jambs”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The areas around the new door jambs installed by the respondent were not grouted.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 1: “Newly installed tile in Hall Bath is not acceptable.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed excessive lippage on several tiles, excessive variations in the grout joints at the outside trim and along the tub deck.
The tile used has chips located throughout the entire tub surround.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 2: “Install correct veneer in vanity.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The incorrect wood veneer was used in the master bathroom vanity cabinet.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 4: “Remove paint, Grout, drywall mud from driveway, porch and walkway.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The conditions described were observed in all of the areas listed.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 6: “Touch up paint on ceilings in hall and dining room.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed marks on the ceiling in the described locations.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 7: “Floor tile is chipped in hall and at new tub installation.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The floor tile has been chipped on the right side in front of the tub.
I am unable to assign fault or determine the cause for the chipped tile in the hallway, demolition had taken place in this location prior to the respondent’s work starting.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 8: “Replace 2 pieces base in Hall Bath behind door.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. No base was installed behind the door and the base installed along the side wall was cut short where it meets the toe kick.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 9: “New Vanity door needs silencers.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The right side door is missing the rubber silencers/bumpers that are present on the left side door.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 10: “Bedroom #2 has crack in drywall at ceiling fan.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. A slice in the drywall was observed next to the supply register in this location.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 11: “Replace 1 shelf support left side in laundry room.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The left side shelf support is not the same length as the right side.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 12: “Shelf in laundry room is rough.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The painted shelf is not smooth. The shelf has a sand finish feel.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 13: “Rework drywall patches at handrail.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The drywall patches are visible in several areas of the wall.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 14: “Check installation of handrail”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The bottom wall bracket does sit flush with the wall.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 15: “Drywall tape blistered on ceiling in bedroom #1.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The inside corner between the wall and ceiling has blistered and the drywall tape is loose.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 17: “Bid items not completed.
Exhaust fan in Hall Bath, Register in living room, bedroom #2, hall bath, mstr. closet. ”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The items listed have not been completed.
Addendum Complaint Item 19: “New tub installed: High on right side in corner” (Complainant’s description of the variation of grout joints along the top deck of the tub)
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The tile grout joint that meets the tub deck has an excessive variation in width, namely on the valve wall. The respondent should identify and correct all areas.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 20: “Drain not centered”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The tub drain assembly is not centered in the recessed section of the tub.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 22: “Chip? at drain”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The tub finish has staining of the finish around the tub drain assembly.
. . . .
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 18: “...Tile that was damaged in foyer. ”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. In response to this complaint item:
There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.
After issuance of the written directives, Respondent attempted to reach a financial settlement with Complainant.
Respondent emailed Complainant on multiple occasions regarding the possibility of a settlement.
On or about July 2, 2024, Respondent emailed Complainant as follows:
If we are not able to agree to a financial settlement, can you please provide dates that we could coordinate with the subcontractors to schedule the remaining and final ROC items?
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.
Complainant did not reply to the email.
On or about July 8, 2024, Respondent emailed Complainant as follows:
I am just following up on the last email sent to you on July 2 about the financial offer or dates that we could begin the repairs. Please let me know which option you would prefer and if you would like to move forward with the repairs, what dates you are available.
Complainant did not reply to the email.
After the deadline in the final amended directive expired, Investigator Johndrow was notified that the corrective work had not been completed.
On or about July 11, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
After the issuance of the Citation, Respondent worked with Complainant to do much of the corrective work. At the time of the hearing, the only item remaining was Addendum Complaint Item #7, involving chipped tiles near the bathtub.
Investigator Johndrow testified that he did not attribute the tile chip in the foyer to Respondent as other workers were on site and the exact timing of the damage could not be ascertained. Investigator Johndrow confirmed that, because the tile throughout the main floor was the same, the appropriate correction, absent the consent of Complainant, would be to change all the tiles. Investigator Johndrow acknowledged that, if Respondent replaced all the tile on the main floor, Complainant would get the tiles in the foyer replaced at Respondent’s expense even though the damage was not attributed to them.
Complainant testified that she would not accept Respondent’s plan to replace only the tile floor in the bathroom, even with the decorative transition offered. Complainant maintained the Respondent was responsible for the damage to the foyer floor tiles and the bathroom floor tiles.
Jeanna Reeve, Consultant for Respondent, testified that Complainant never responded to the emails asking for dates to perform the corrective work prior to the deadline in the directives to complete such work. As such, Respondent could not perform any corrective work as required.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 4, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 228730 was first issued on February 12, 2007, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints and two prior resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.
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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
The evidence established that Respondent made repeated attempts to contact Complainant regarding dates to perform the corrective work, but Complainant did not respond. While Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar, Respondent had valid justification for doing so given Complainant’s denial of access. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
The Registrar neither expects nor demands perfection of its licensees. While the job may not have complied with the Registrar’s standards at the time of the jobsite inspection, the deadline in the written directive was issued to allow Respondent an opportunity to correct those workmanship issues. Complainant’s failure to allow access to the property precludes a finding of a workmanship violation. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent’s work was not in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order in this matter, the Registrar close Complainant’s complaint in Case No. 2024-01316 against Respondent based on Complainant’s failure to provide Respondent access to comply with the written directives.
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, June 4, 2025.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Michael Charles Brown
Quarles & Brady LLP
[email redacted]
Gregory Johndrow
[email redacted]
Barbara A Tyson
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff