ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-09360-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-02-05
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Shirley Hongsermeier
COMPLAINANT,
vs.
City To Desert Services LLC
License No. ROC 349895
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-09360-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 16, 2025
APPEARANCES: Shirley Hongsermeier, (hereinafter “Complainant”), appeared on behalf of herself. Tryston Jordan appeared on behalf of City to Desert Services, LLC, (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits A through H. Respondent’s Exhibit 1.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent holds Specialty Residential R-62 Minor Home Improvements
License No. 349895 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar” or “ROC”).
Tryston Jordan is an owner of Respondent.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned
matter for hearing on January 16, 2025, by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the Citation and Complaint.
Through the Citation, the Registrar alleges 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. sections 32-1154(A)(22).
6. The Citation shows that if the Administrative Law Judge finds that the alleged charges are valid, the Registrar may suspend or revoke Respondent’s license.
7. On or about May 30, 2024, Complainant and Respondent entered into a residential remodeling project for the amount of $6,000.00. The contract included the following provisions related to the installation of a 110 voltage mirror:
Review installation site for suitability and access to electrical wiring
Confirm minor dimensions and electrical requirements
Turn off power to the circuit at the breaker box
Mount mirror securely to the wall using appropriate hardware
Connect mirror’s wiring to the electrical box, ensuring proper grounding and polarity
Test mirror functionality and adjust as needed
8. On May 30, 2024, Respondent started work.
9. On or about July 17, 2024, Respondent stopped work.
10. On or about August 15, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint from Complainant, alleging poor work on the part of Respondent.
11. On September 18, 2024, Registrar Investigator Todd Anderson
conducted a jobsite inspection. Investigator Anderson substantiated three items in the complaint.
12. On September 30, 2024, the Registrar issued a Directive to Respondent that 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 October 16th, 2024.
RESTRICTIONS
• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.
• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive,
expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 2 - Dishwasher hook up
Investigator’s Observation: Dishwasher installation was not included in
the original Proposal; however, in the "Bulletin List" provided to me by the
Respondent, "dishwasher installation" was included. Furthermore, a
reasonable assumption would be that "installation" would mean functionality.
At the jobsite Inspection, the dishwasher did not appear to be in operating
order.
Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work. A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item: 6 - Damaged beam in kitchen
Investigator’s Observation: The beam which divides the kitchen from the
family room had observable damage to the bottom. Contractor acknowledged
culpability. Repairs were initiated but never completed. Contractor shall
complete the repairs to the beam by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work. A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item: 9 - Paid to have bathroom mirror installed and connected
to electric
Investigator’s Observation: At the Jobsite Inspection, I observed a
Homeowner purchased LED bathroom mirror which was secured to the wall.
The electric was not yet hooked up and a Junction Box, along with the opening
in the drywall housing the original recessed mirror, was visible above the new
mirror. According to both the Homeowner and Contractor, there were disputes
over additional funds required to complete the work. Regardless of any request
for additional money, the Contractor accepted payment and started the work.
The installation still needs to be completed. The Contractor shall complete the
installation of the mirror in accordance with any applicable building codes and
professional industry standards. Any work related to electrical must be
subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor.
Governing Rule: 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work. A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
..................................
13. After the Directive expired, Complainant notified Investigator Anderson that the only items that had not been properly corrected were the mirror and the beam.
14. On November 1, 2024, Investigator Anderson conducted a compliance job-site inspection. Investigator Anderson concluded that Respondent had corrected “Compliance Item: 2 – Dishwasher Hook up”. However, Investigator Anderson concluded that Respondent had failed to correct the beam and the mirror. Investigator Anderson’s compliance inspection notes provided, in relevant pat, as follows:
Complaint Item: 6 - Damaged beam in kitchen
Investigator’s Initial Observation: The beam which divides the kitchen from the family room had observable damage to the bottom. Contractor acknowledged culpability. Repairs were initiated but never completed. Contractor shall complete the repairs to the beam by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: At the Compliance Inspection conducted on November 1st, 2024, it appeared as though the Contractor did little more than apply a 2nd coat of spackle or putty over the damaged areas. No evidence of any sanding was observed. The corrective work was not completed and does not meet minimum workmanship standards.
Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall complete all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 9 - Paid to have bathroom mirror installed and connected to electric
Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the Jobsite Inspection, I observed a Homeowner purchased LED bathroom mirror which was secured to the wall. The electric was not yet hooked up and a Junction Box, along with the opening in the drywall housing the original recessed mirror, was visible above the new mirror. According to both the Homeowner and Contractor, there were disputes over additional funds required to complete the work. Regardless of any request for additional money, the Contractor accepted payment and started the work. The installation still needs to be completed. The Contractor shall complete the installation of the mirror in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. Any work related to electrical must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor.
Compliance Observation: The installation of the mirror was not completed. It appeared as though the Contractor attached a new plug to the end of the cord which came with the LED mirror and plugged it into the outlet (which had no cover and was not GFCI Protected) located below the mirror. It was not attached to the “electrical box” located above the mirror as was listed on his scope of work dated June 15th, 2024. Additionally, an open portion of the drywall above the mirror was still not covered, exposing 1⁄2 of the J-Box. The corrective work was not completed and does not meet minimum workmanship standards.
Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall complete all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
15. Respondent filed a timely response to the Citation issued in this matter.
16. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
17. At hearing, Complainant testified on her own behalf. Tryston Jordan and Calvin Johnson testified on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Anderson testified consistently his job-site and compliance inspection notes.
18. Complainant explained that Respondent performed poor work during the home remodeling project. Complainant asserted that one of Respondent’s workers damaged the beam in her kitchen. Complainant also stated that Mr. Jordan failed to properly install her mirror.
19. Mr. Jordan stated at hearing, “we only came to hang the mirror.”
Mr. Jordan stated that he told Complainant that Respondent could perform minor electrical work as along as Respondent could turn off the power. Mr. Jordan stated there was still voltage coming into the bathroom even after the breaker was turned off. Mr. Jordan testified that he told Complainant that she would need to hire an electrician and install an additional breaker to connect the mirror to the junction box. Mr. Jordan stated that Complainant wanted to place the mirror up high enough to cover the opening in the wall. After Complainant learned that she could not use the mirror, Mr. Jordan stated that Complainant told him to stop work on the mirror. Mr. Jordan alleged that Respondent issued a change order to wire the three prong plug to go into the 110 electrical box and that Respondent performed the work in the change order. However, there was no evidence of a written change order presented at hearing.
20. Mr. Jordan asserted that Respondent repaired the beam. Mr. Jordan told Complainant that the beam needed to be sanded. Mr. Jordan stated that he did not sand the beam because he was not hired to perform painting work.
21. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on February 5, 2025, Respondent’s license was first issued on January 29, 2024, and is active. Such prior License record also shows that there is one open complaint against Respondent’s license.
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 violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section
41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno 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).
3. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A). Mr. Jordan contended at hearing that he did not sand the beam because he does not perform painting work and that he did not perform any electrical work because he is not an electrician. However, the preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing shows Respondent contracted to perform electrical work that was not performed or subcontracted to an electrical contractor. Because Respondent damaged the beam in Complainant’s kitchen, Respondent is liable for the damage.
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification as it relates to Complaint Items 6 and 9, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 License No. 349895 issued to City to Desert Services, LLC, for three days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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, February 5, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
City To Desert Services LLC
[email redacted]
Shirley Hongsermeier
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff