ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-09835-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-03
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Lacey Lynn Mayfield,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Kaolo A/C LLC,
License No. ROC 324688,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-09835-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: September 23, 2025 at 1:00pm and October 17, 2025 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Complainant Lacey Lynn Mayfield on her own behalf. Eric Tegomo appeared on behalf of Respondent Kaolo A/C, LLC. Investigator Lisa Melton appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Kaolo A/C, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 324688 first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on June 5, 2019. The license is a Specialty Dual CR-39 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration license which allows the licensee to install, alter, and repair refrigeration and evaporative cooling systems. This license also allows, if necessary, a new circuit may be added to the existing service panel or sub-panel and excluded is the installation of a new service panel or sub-panel.
On July 11, 2024, Lacey Lynn Mayfield (“Complainant”) purchased a residential home located in Scottsdale, Arizona, in the amount of $685,000.00. The seller of the property, Realty Company who flipped the house, hired Respondent to install a new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) unit for the new homebuyer, Complainant. The contract was dated on April 17, 2024, in the amount of $10,300.00, between Realty Company and Respondent.
Shortly after living in her new home, the HVAC unit stopped running and Complainant reached out to Respondent, however, the unit remained unfixed.
On or about August 26, 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 Lisa Melton. Investigator Melton scheduled a jobsite inspection on November 6, 2024. The jobsite inspection was rescheduled to December 11, 2024. The jobsite inspection was rescheduled and ultimately was held on January 30, 2025, with both parties present.
On March 4, 2025, Investigator Melton issued a Written Directive to Respondent.
On March 21, 2025, Complainant filed an amended complaint. Investigator Melton scheduled an addendum inspection on April 24, 2025, with both parties present.
On May 16, 2025, Investigator Melton issued an Amended Written Directive to Respondent 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 June 6, 2025.
If additional time is required, due to conditions beyond Respondent’s control, Respondent should submit a request for extension and provide any relevant information substantiating the need for extension PRIOR to the expiration of the Written Directive.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item 2: HVAC - the PCV return water pipe isnt hooked up right so it doesnt drain when on and running.
Investigator’s Observation: The condensate disposal does not comply with building code. ICC Code M1411.3 Condensate disposal. Condensate from cooling coils and evaporators shall be conveyed from the drain pan outlet to an approved place of disposal. Such piping shall maintain a minimum horizontal slope in the direction of discharge of not less than 1/8 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (1-percent slope). Condensate shall not discharge into a street, alley or other areas where it would cause a nuisance.
Unit was purchased by Respondent on April 17, 2024 (residence was purchased by Complainant with installed unit on June 11, 2024) Water is running from unit down the roof and water damage is apparent in area below unit. Drain line does not comply with code. Line extends beyond roof but does not maintain a horizontal slope as a section has been installed vertically (no apparent pitch). There is a greater likelihood than not that this unit has discharged in this manner since install. Install would have occurred between 4/17/24 and 6/11/24. Respondent should correct line to comply with code, ensure appropriate draining of condensate and correct the water damage caused to the existing roof by moisture draining from unit rather than traveling from a correctly installed condensate drain line. Corrective work should be performed by appropriately licensed contractor(s). Note: due to water damage and flexing in roof, I did not access the roof for this inspection beyond photos from the top of the ladder. Photos were taken with my camera by the Complainant’s representative during our inspection.
. . . .
Compliance Item 16: A/C unit circuit breaker is oversized at 60amps 240VAC. A/C unit nameplate states a 45amp 240VAC max be supplied to the unit. Replacement of the breaker with correct size is highly recommended.
Investigator’s Observation: Manufacturer label on unit states: Maximum HACR (Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration) Circuit Breaker AMPS 45. Panel identifies A/C relative to AMPS 60. Unit is not installed in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Respondent should correct this condition by appropriate methods. Respondent’s license allows them to self-perform this work.
. . . .
After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Melton was notified that no corrective work had been performed.
On June 25, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(B); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00pm on September 23, 2025. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.
A July 25, 2025 order from the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet on September 23, 2025.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
On September 24, 2025, Eric Tegomo on behalf of Respondent, reached out to OAH and requested another hearing. A further hearing was scheduled on October 17, 2025, in which Respondent appeared.
Hearing Evidence
Mr. Tegomo, Respondent owner, testified that he “swapped” the old HVAC unit with a new HVAC unit and no duct work was performed. Mr. Tegomo testified that everything was working with the new unit after the installation and that he did not need to update the breaker because he was “not an electrician.” In regards to the condensate line, Mr. Tegomo testified that some water was normal when you have a heat pump unit and that ultimately he was “really sorry.”
Investigator Melton testified that although the old HVAC unit was swapped with the new HVAC unit, the new unit’s manufacturer label required a maximum 45 amp circuit breaker. Investigator Melton further testified that the new unit was hooked up to a 60 amp circuit breaker which violated code and the manufacturer’s instructions.
Complainant testified that the new HVAC circuit breaker popped and her unit would no longer run properly.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 17, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 324688 was Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no disciplinary actions against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, although Mr. Tegomo switched out the old HVAC unit with the new HVAC unit, the record showed that the 60 amp circuit breaker that the new HVAC used was not proper per the manufacturer’s instructions. Unfortunately, Respondent did not account for this factor when installing the unit. As such, 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 workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(B).
In addition, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. 324688 for a period of one day.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, November 4, 2025.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Lisa Melton
[email redacted]
Kaolo A/C LLC
1610 W Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85041
[email redacted]
Lacey Lynn Mayfield
14002 N 58th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff