ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-07517-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Elizabeth Gosselin,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Sun Valley General Contractors, LLC

License No. ROC 345270,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-07517-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 4, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Elizabeth Gosselin appeared on her own behalf. Lawrence Felder, Esq. represented Respondent Sun Valley General Contractors, LLC. Alin Ghetes appeared on behalf of Respondent Sun Valley General Contractors, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Chester appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record; Complainant Elizabeth Gosselin’s Exhibit A; Respondent Sun Valley General Contractors, LLC’s Exhibits 1-5

FINDINGS OF FACT

Sun Valley General Contractors, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 345270 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Alin Ghetes is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Manager.

In or about February 2024, Elizabeth Gosselin (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform remodeling work at Complainant’s home.

On or about July 10, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator John Chester. After an August 12, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Chester issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated August 16, 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 Friday, September 20, 2024.

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

Complaint Item 2: Tile placed in front of kitchen sink cabinet placed incorrectly and with wrong grout

Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection, the grout under the sink is wrong,

respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 3: Painted on can lights

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 4: Paint on floors

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 5: Did not finish wall, paint or clean up behind stove

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 7: Several imperfections on ceiling and walls

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 8: Splotchy paint throughout kitchen and ceiling

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 9: Paint between counter and wall not completed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 11: Counter between range and refrigerator was cut 24 1/2” was to be 24” refrigerator cannot fully be placed in area

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 12: Seam line on counters very noticeable

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 13: Crack/chip at seam lines

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 14: Counters at seam lines are “foggy

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 15: Cabinets at base not finished

Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection there is no trim on the bottom of the cabinets making them look unfinished, The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 16: holes in 42” cabinet possible nails

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 17: Cabinet doors uneven

Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection there is a door not plumb and needs to be adjusted back in along with aligned, respondent to fix by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 18: Bulkhead wavy/uneven

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 19: Finishing between kitchen and dining room drywall splotchy

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 20: Drywall finish not flat finish level 4/5 throughout all kitchen

Investigator’s Observation: During inspection the wall texture has a bunch of holes where the rest of the wall doesn’t have that texture, respondent to correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 21: Drywall on kitchen to dining room head not level 4/5 finish

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 22: Nail holes in kitchen cabinets skin board

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 23: Trim around base cabinets not finished

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 24: Nail head through cabinets showing

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 25: Paint splatters throughout kitchen - floors, window sill, windows, ceiling fan, counters

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 28: Trim/paint/silicon around kitchen window unfinished Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 30: Marks/cracks throughout (house) cabinets from handle installation

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 31: Tile lippage several

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 32: Tile separated from wall - several areas

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 33: Unfinished between tile and cabinet

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 36: Wrong grout color used

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 37: Grout cracking

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 39: Paint on Schlueter trim

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 42: Trim cracked

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 43: Nail heads

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 45: Nail heads show on kick plate

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 48: Downstairs bedroom closet doors paint uneven

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 49: Master bed closet door paint uneven, drips, missing finger pull, paint on floor, paint dripping on bottom of doors

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 50: All doors were painted on only one side- all edges unfinished

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 51: Paint uneven

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 53: Cracked the doors

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 54: Paint on wood floors

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 55: Painted bled over to walls

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item 56: Painted drips on doors and areas painted

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 1: Wrong grout used throughout kitchen

Investigator’s Observation: Complaint item meets minimum industry standards.

No correction is required.

Complaint Item 6: Stove vent was blocked off with cabinet, vent goes nowhere

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or disprove complaint item is the responsibility of the Respondent.

Complaint Item 10: Wrong counters were installed

Investigator’s Observation: This is a materials issue, not a workmanship issue. The ROC has no jurisdiction over materials manufacturers.

Complaint Item 26: Construction dust

Investigator’s Observation: The ROC has no jurisdiction on this complaint item.

Complaint Item 27: Painted over ac vent covers

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or disprove complaint item is the responsibility of the Respondent.

Complaint Item 29: Electrical from light switch for under mount lights removed or tucked into wall

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or disprove complaint item is the responsibility of the Respondent.

Complaint Item 34: Front of new tub severally scratched

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or disprove the damage is the responsibility of the Respondent.

Complaint Item 35: Inside of tub grime-substance - drywall dust

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or verify complaint item constitutes poor work due to the complaint item being modified prior to the JSI, ARS §32-1155 (D)(2)

Complaint Item 38: Green board not wonder board used - Area was not waterproofed

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or disprove complaint item is the responsibility of the Respondent.

Complaint Item 40: Caulking around tile not done to water proof

Investigator’s Observation: Complaint item meets minimum industry standards. No correction is required.

Complaint Item 41: Confirm tub is set correctly per code

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or disprove complaint item is the responsibility of the Respondent.

Complaint Item 44: Kick plate not secured properly

Investigator’s Observation: Complaint item meets minimum industry standards. No correction is required.

Complaint Item 46: Debris in sink - drain has debris from construction (p-trap)

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or verify complaint item constitutes poor work due to the complaint item being modified prior to the JSI, ARS §32-1155 (D)(2)

Complaint Item 47: Sink has silicon stains

Investigator’s Observation: Unable to verify, no evidence to prove or disprove the damage is the responsibility of the Respondent.

Complaint Item 52: Painted over hinges again

Investigator’s Observation: Complaint item meets minimum industry standards. No correction is required.

Complaint Item 57: Paint is tacky

Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection, no deficiency observed or demonstrated.

Complaint Item 58: Drywall dust in ducts

Investigator’s Observation: The ROC has no jurisdiction on this complaint item.

Complaint Item 59: Construction dust throughout house

Investigator’s Observation: The ROC has no jurisdiction on this complaint item.

All errors and emphasis in original.

On or about September 5, 2024, at the request of the parties, Investigator Chester extended the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive to September 27, 2024.

After the extended deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Chester conducted a Compliance Inspection on November 14, 2024, at which both parties were present.

Investigator Chester ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive. Investigator Chester’s Compliance Notes indicate that only eight of the items ordered to be corrected were completed, specifically, item numbers 5, 8, 16, 33, 42, 43, 48, and 50.

Thereafter, Investigator Chester forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

The hearing of this matter was initially scheduled to convene on February 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. On the date and time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on her own behalf. Lawrence Felder, Esq. represented Respondent. Alin Ghetes was present on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Chester appeared as a witness. The parties participated in a prehearing discussion outside of the presence of the Administrative Law Judge. Following that discussion, the parties requested additional time in which to allow Complainant an opportunity to obtain bids from licensed contractors to complete/repair the remaining verified items listed in the Written Directive, and provide those bids to Mr. Felder to review with Mr. Ghetes in order to arrive at a mutually agreeable monetary settlement of the matter. The request was granted and that matter was set for a written Status Update on March 12, 2025.

On March 11, 2025, Complainant requested that an additional Status Date be set in approximately sixty days in order to provide the parties more time in which to resolve the matter. The request was granted and the matter was thereafter set for a written Status Update by May 12, 2025.

On May 12, 2025, Complainant requested that an additional Status Date be set in approximately sixty days in order to provide the parties more time in which to resolve the matter. The request was granted and the matter was thereafter set for a written Status Update by July 14, 2025.

On July 14, 2025, Complainant requested that a hearing date be scheduled.

The matter was set for a continued hearing on September 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. On that date and time, Complainant appeared on her own behalf. Mr. Felder represented Respondent. Mr. Ghetes was present on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Chester appeared as a witness.

Investigator Chester testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive and Compliance Notes and referenced numerous photographs contained in the Agency Record that depicted Respondent’s workmanship. Investigator Chester testified that Respondent had stated Complainant had denied access to the jobsite, and Complainant sated the contrary. Respondent did not provide any documentation corroborating its claim of denial of access, and in fact, Respondent completed corrective work to eight items of Complaint that were verified by Investigator Chester.

Investigator Chester testified that at the Jobsite Inspection, Respondent alleged that certain items of Complaint were not within its scope of work. However, Respondent acknowledged that he performed the work that was at issue.

Complainant testified that Respondent did not communicate with her until September 5, 2024, notwithstanding that the Written Directive as issued on August 16, 2024. Complainant explained that because she was out of town from September 6, 2024 through September 15, 2024, she requested that Investigator Chester extend the period of the Written Directive in order to afford Respondent ample opportunity to perform the corrective work. The Written Directive was thereafter extended to September 27, 2024. On September 16, 2024, Respondent performed the corrective work to the eight items that were completed. That was the only date Respondent performed any work. Complainant did not hear from Respondent again until the parties participated in a conference call with Investigator Chester on September 27, 2024.

Mr. Ghetes testified that the scope of work for the project changed several times and that some of the items Respondent was directed to correct were not within Respondent’s scope of work, such as drywall repair. Mr. Ghetes asserted that Complainant refused to have Respondent perform work to the existing drywall before painting because Complainant did not want to pay for such work. However, instead of obtaining a waiver or refusing to perform the painting on that surface, Respondent performed the painting.

Mr. Ghetes testified regarding the majority of the items Respondent was ordered to correct, and provided his reasoning as to why Respondent should not be responsible for such work or why the work was substandard, such as the use of “cheap paint.” Mr. Ghetes further testified that the issue with the cabinet doors was due to “changes in the weather.” Mr. Ghetes admitted to uneven paint lines, stating “maybe [Respondent] did not use tape,” as well as stating that Respondent “could have drilled a bit better” in reference to the cracked door in item 53. Mr. Ghetes admitted that as to Complaint items 12, 13, and 14, Respondent “could have done a better job.”

The Registrar’s substantive policy statement 2017.01 sets out the following pertinent information:

Acceptance of the Surface

As a general principle in construction, a subcontractor who performs work on top of a surface prepared by another accepts the surface. The subcontractor should have inspected the surface for any flaws or defects that would affect the work he proposes before performing the work. If he found the surface to be unacceptable, he should have called any defects to the owner’s or general contractor’s attention so that the owner can choose whether to pay for the defective surface to be corrected or if the owner is not willing to pay to correct the surface, the contractor may obtain an explicit warranty disclaimer.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 15, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 345270 was first issued on May 30, 2023, and is suspended. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, one resolved/settled complaint, and one complaint resulting in discipline and 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’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and acknowledged such. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. 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 Number 345270 for a period of ten (10) 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 (30) 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, September 17, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Joey Chester

[email redacted]

Lawrence J. Felder, Esq.

Resolvere Law, PLLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Elizabeth Gosselin

[email redacted]

Sun Valley General Contractors, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff