ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-05383-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Sandra McAfee-Symons,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Teancum LLC

DBA: Custom Design Build & Remodel

License No. ROC 337798, 337799, 337800,

and 337801,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-05383-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 14, 2025 and April 4, 2025.

APPEARANCES: Mark S. Molique appeared on behalf of Complainant Sandra McAfee-Symons. Trevor Fish appeared on behalf of Respondent Teancum LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Steven Avila appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits A-D, J-T, Z, GG, HH, SS, TT, YY, ZZ, AAA-EEE were admitted. Respondent’s Exhibits 1 (specifically Bates 1-4, 34-41, 44-53) - 3 were admitted.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Teancum LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License Nos. 337798, 337799, 337800, and 337801 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about June 29, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to remodel her home in Gilbert, Arizona.

On or about May 9, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Steven Avila. There were two jobsite inspections one performed on June 4, 2024, and a second on July 19, 2024.

Investigator Avila then issued a Written Directive on or about August 8, 2024, which provided in pertinent 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 August 30, 2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 - Exposed wiring can be seen through an access panel into the attic (the HVAC air handler and duct work was relocated as part of a change order). Ex. 8.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were wires in the attic with exposed wire ends resulting in improper termination or removal. Allegation is verified.

Respondent shall determine the status of the wires and if live correct by the appropriate means or remove unused wiring.

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.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 4 - Tankless ventilation piping is not level and has a belly.

Investigator’s Observation: PVC exhaust piping did not contain proper bracing in the attic space which was viewable from the garage attic opening. Improper bracing has resulted in a viewable downward bow. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

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.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 6 - No shut off valve at water heater.

Investigator’s Observation: Manufacturer’s instructions for the installed RHEEM ECOH200DVLN-2 states "install the gas shut-off fitting supplied directly to the bottom of the water heater". At the time of the inspection no shut off fitting was installed directly below the water heater. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

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.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 7 - No gas sediment trap at tankless water heater.

Investigator’s Observation: Manufacturer’s instructions call for a sediment trap on the installed unit. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

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.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 9 - Toilet supply line connected to hot water.

Investigator’s Observation: It was substantiated that the installed toilet is connected to a hot water source. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

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.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 18 - Exterior stucco repairs not straight, out of plumb and not painted.

Investigator’s Observation: Workmanship standards state - Walls should be straight within 1/4" and plumb within 1/4". The exterior stucco wall finish has a large outward bow in excess of the allowable tolerances. Paint if part of the respondent’s scope is considered a work in progress. Allegation for stucco plumb and straightness is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

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.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 20 – The weep screed was installed incorrectly at stucco repair areas. Weep screed was placed on sides of doors; wood is still exposed in some areas; unsure if weep screed installed at bottom of walls where walls were built up.

Investigator’s Observation: It was observed at the time of the inspection that the installed stucco repairs did not contain weep screed in multiple areas. There was exposed materials beneath the installed stucco in these areas. Workmanship standards state - Weep screeds missing on frame walls or not properly installed = Contractor responsibility is Contractor should make necessary repairs. At the time of the inspection it could be seen that weep screed materials were used in the framing of the patio door. Weep screed does not appear as a material used to frame the transition between stucco and door frame throughout the industry and therefore does not meet industry standards. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

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.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 21 - External French doors installed do not stay open where placed, drifts, and door latch hits strikeplate.

Investigator’s Observation: French doors in the bedroom leading to the rear of the residence have been deemed a work in progress. This is not part of the directive for this line item. Exterior door in living area leading to the rear of the residence did show movement when left ajar. Workmanship standards state - Doors should not move to open or closed when 45o to opening. Allegation is verified for the French door in the lounge area, No other issues with the patio doors are being directed in regards to the patio doors. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

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.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 24 – The contract included structural engineering and obtaining permits for the work.

See Ex. 1 at page 2.2 Permit only obtained for kitchen, fireplace, and powder room bathroom and not the rest of the project. According to City of Gilbert, permits were needed for at least the following:

a. changing from standard water heater to tankless water heater;

b. relocating toilet in shared bathroom;

c. installing a water softener;

d. adding beam to remove post in kitchen. See Ex. 2 at 2 (change order states change includes structural beam and engineering);

e. Relocated HVAC air handler from attic to garage, relocated ductwork, and extending refrigerant lines. See Ex. 2 at 3.

Investigator’s Observation: Per a conversation with City of Gilbert inspector a plan change should be submitted to the local permitting department to address any additional changes outside the submitted scope. Based on the scope performed and direction from the City of Gilbert a plan change should be submitted and the local jurisdiction who shall determine additional inspections needed. Allegation is verified. The Respondent will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection based on any work performed outside the scope of the original permit.

Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)

Complaint Item: 30 - Paint Discoloration – Painter used an oil base aerosol primer over latex paint to control bleed thru where workers used grease pencils/permanent marker to leave notes on interior walls. The walls now have sheen spots where the primer was used.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection paint flashing could be seen in multiple areas throughout the residence. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

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.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 31 - Wood floors have glue spots – Fingermarks and shoe footprints are visible on flooring.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the wood flooring had been installed, glue remnants were present resulting in blemishes. Allegation is verified.

Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

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.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship...

On September 27, 2024, Investigator Avila conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection, and noted the following in pertinent part:

. . .

Written directive was issued on August 8, 2024 with a completion date and time of August 30, 2024.

Compliance inspection were performed on September 27, 2024.

Additional work was completed during the directive period. It was stated during the compliance inspection that the two parties have not reached an agreement on how to proceed with the additional items remaining that were not addressed in the written directive.

Compliance Findings:

Complaint Item: 3 - Exposed wiring can be seen through an access panel into the attic.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the time of the inspection there were wires in the attic with exposed wire ends resulting in improper termination or removal. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall determine the status of the wires and if live correct by the appropriate means or remove unused wiring.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the inspection he wiring in the attic was removed.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 4 - Tankless ventilation piping is not level and has a belly.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: PVC exhaust piping did not contain proper bracing in the attic space which was viewable from the garage attic opening. Improper bracing has resulted in a viewable downward bow. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the inspection the venting for the tankless water heater had added support and dipping in the pipe was removed.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 6 - No shut off valve at water heater.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Manufacturer’s instructions for the installed RHEEM ECOH200DVLN-2 states "install the gas shut-off fitting supplied directly to the bottom of the water heater". At the time of the inspection no shut off fitting was installed directly below the water heater. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: This item is in a corrective state. Complainant stated that work was performed by others as a gas leak was detected and additional changes needed.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 7 - No gas sediment trap at tankless water heater.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Manufacturers instructions call for a sediment trap on the installed unit. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Complete at the time of the CJSI.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 9 - Toilet supply line connected to hot water.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: It was substantiated that the installed toilet is connected to a hot water source. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: The toilet supply line was corrected prior to the inspection. However additional damaged has been caused in the effort to correct the line item and remains. Drywall openings in multiple areas.

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.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 18 - Exterior stucco repairs not straight, out of plumb and not painted.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Workmanship standards state - Walls should be straight within 1/4" and plumb within 1/4". The exterior stucco wall finish has a large outward bow in excess of the allowable tolerances. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Stucco repairs made prior to the inspection.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 20 - The weep screed was installed incorrectly at stucco repair areas. Weepscreed was placed on sides of doors; wood is stil

Investigator’s Initial Observation: It was observed at the time of the inspection that the installed stucco repairs did not contain weep screed in multiple areas. There was exposed materials beneath the installed stucco in these areas. Workmanship standards state – Weep screeds missing on frame walls or not properly installed = Contractor responsibility is Contractor should make necessary repairs. At the time of the inspection it could be seen that weep screed materials were used in the framing of the patio door. Weep screed does not not appear as a material used to frame the transition between stucco and door frame throughout the industry and therefore does not meet industry standards. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Repairs made prior to the inspection.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 21 - External French doors installed do not stay open where placed, drifts, and door latch hits strikeplate.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: French doors in the bedroom leading to the rear of the residence have been deemed a work in progress. This is not part of the directive for this line item. Exterior door in living area leading to the rear of the residence did show movement when left ajar. Workmanship standards state - Doors should not move to open or closed when 45o to opening. allegation is verified. for the French door in the lounge area, No other issues with the patio doors are being directed in regards to the patio doors. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the inspection the parties stated that no changes were made in this area. The doors were tested again and when opened to a 45 degree angle remained steady with no movement.

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.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 24 - The contract included structural engineering and obtaining permits for the work. See Ex. 1 at page 2.2 Permit only obtai

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Per a conversation with City of Gilbert inspector a plan change should be submitted to the local permitting department to address any additional changes outside the submitted scope. Based on the scope performed and direction from the City of Gilbert a plan change should be submitted and the local jurisdiction who shall determine additional inspections needed. Allegation is verified. The Respondent will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection based on any work performed outside the scope of the original permit.

Compliance Observation: Respondent was directive to acquire all needed permits and subsequently pass all needed inspection. At the time of the compliance inspection the respondent had no acquired the needed permits per the agreed upon scope of work and work performed.

Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 30 - Paint Discoloration – Painter used an oil base aerosol primer over latex paint to control bleed thru where workers used

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the time of the inspection paint flashing could be seen in multiple areas throughout the residence. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the compliance inspection there were two locations, one in the kitchen and one in a hallway in which paint variations were still visible.

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.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 31 - Wood floors have glue spots – Fingermarks and shoe footprints are visible on flooring.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the time of the inspection the wood flooring had been installed, glue remnants were present resulting in blemishes. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the inspection there were still glue and stain remnants on the flooring in question.

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.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED. . .

(All errors contained in the original)

On October 29, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about November 13, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about January 13, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on February 14, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Avila testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Avila testified that Respondent failed obtain a permit for the support beam, the gas line, and other locations for electrical and plumbing changes.

Further, Investigator Avila testified that Respondent failed on every permit inspection, and that Respondent never brought the permit to any of the inspections.

Investigator Avila testified that even though an extension to complete the corrective work was given, Respondent failed to fully comply with the Written Directive.

Complainant offered the testimony of Jason Stanley, a Gilbert Plan Review Supervisor. Mr. Stanley testified that while Respondent submitted updated plans on September 16, 2024, they were returned for correction on October 16, 2024. Finally, Mr. Stanley testified that to date, no plans have been re-submitted for approval.

Complainant’s testimony echoed Investigator Avila as to the status of the project. Complainant also testified that this project was extremely inconvenient for her and her family as they had essentially been living out of their master bedroom since the project began.

Further, Complainant testified that while there was an initial approved plan from the town of Gilbert, there was a lot of work completed that was not on those plans. For example, there were changes to the sink in the bathroom, laundry room water line, washing machine drain line, electrical added for the fireplace and a gas line moved for the water heater. Too, Complainant testified that she never received any of the permitted plans during construction.

Complainant also testified that while the Directive expired on August 30, 2024, Respondent’s workers were not present on the jobsite until August 29, 2025, and that Mr. Merrill was only present a “handful of times” to observe the work.

As to the damage on the floors, Complainant opined that Respondent’s faulty installation caused the glue stains, and that they were permanent. Further, Complainant opined that entire floor would have to be redone as individual planks were not repairable.

As to the painting, Complainant testified as to multiple areas where there would be “shiny spots” depending on the time of day, and that even some repairs that were made caused additional problems.

Ernest Merrill testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Merrill was Respondent’s owner and Qualifying Party. Mr. Merrill testified stated that he had been in the construction industry since he was 25.

Mr. Merrill testified that as to the repairs made in the bathroom, he had to leave the drywall open for the permit inspection.

As to the paint issues, Mr. Merrill testified that he believed the issue was corrected and was unsure why it was left uncorrected by his workers.

As to the glue spots in on the flooring, Mr. Merrill testified that again, he believed the areas mentioned in the Directive were corrected and was unaware of any additional areas which needed repair. Mr. Merrill opined that individual planks could be removed and replaced, and that the whole floor would not have to be redone.

Finally, as to the permit issue, Mr. Merrill admitted that he did not have the change permit for submission prior to the end of the Directive. Mr. Merrill testified that his draftsman lied and strung him along which caused the delay.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 21, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License Nos. 337798, 337799, 337800, and 337801 were first issued on April 27, 2022, and License No. 337798 had one open case and two resolved/settled cases.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), as the original permit was incorrect, the updated permit was not submitted by the end of the Directive period. The most troubling was that given Mr. Merrill’s substantial knowledge in the industry, he knew that performing work on areas which were not permitted was absolutely inappropriate. Further, to omit areas on the plans which clearly needed modifications to the electrical, plumbing and gas, was unacceptable. It is this violation that was the most egregious in determining the recommended order.

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the work performed was not completed in a workmanlike manner.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. As mentioned, above by Mr. Merrill’s own admission, the change permit was not submitted nor approved prior to the expiration of the Directive. Further, there were remaining issues with the painting and wood plans in multiple areas. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 337798, 337799, 337800, and 337801 for a period of twelve days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 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 A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

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, April 21, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Trevor J. Fish

Evans, Dove, Nelson, Fish & Grier P.L.C.

[email redacted]

Mark Molique

Molique Law, PLLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff