ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-10754-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Mike Lehmann

Desert Remodel LLC,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Gabriel Custom Homes, LLC

License No. ROC 330213,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-10754-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 27, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Mike Lehmann appeared on his own behalf. Gabriel Mirabal appeared on behalf of Respondent Gabriel Custom Homes, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Lisa Melton appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None offered; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Gabriel Custom Homes, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 330213 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Gabriel Mirabal is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Member.

In or about May 2023, Mike Lehmann (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to construct an addition to Complainant’s home.

On or about September 20, 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 Lisa Melton.

On November 20, 2024, Investigator Melton conducted a Jobsite Inspection. On December 9, 2024, Investigator Melton issued a 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 January 9, 2025.

If additional time is required due to conditions beyond the Respondent’s control, they should request an extension prior the expiration of Written Directive and provide sufficient documentation to support the need for the extension.

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

Compliance Item 1: Contractor asked for prepayment of final installment and didn't finish anything after that

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent’s scope of work is not complete. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

Compliance Item 2: HVAC system needs to be installed

Investigator’s Observation: System has not been installed. Respondent acknowledged that HVAC system is part of their scope. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

Compliance Item 3: Water heater needs to be installed

Investigator’s Observation: Water heater has not been installed. Respondent acknowledged that water heater is part of their scope. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority

(permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

Compliance Item 4: final electrical work to be completed

Investigator’s Observation: Electrical is not complete. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

Compliance Item 5: addition needs to be opened to main house - drywall, framing to be finished (not started yet)

Investigator’s Observation: This area is not opened. The Registrar cannot inspect workmanship relative to work that is not complete or which requires permit and inspection by the building official. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

Compliance Item 6: new drain pipe for existing A/C line to be completed

Investigator’s Observation: Line is not complete. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

Compliance Item 7: Main Bathroom walls and plumbing to be completed

Investigator’s Observation: Main bathroom is not complete. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

Compliance Item 8: roof not completed

Investigator’s Observation: Roof is not complete. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

Compliance Item 9: doors and windows need adjustments

Investigator’s Observation: Doors have not been adjusted. Windows may not be installed in accordance with manufacturer recommendations, however, they cannot be inspected for workmanship at this time. The Registrar cannot inspect workmanship relative to work that is not complete or which requires permit and inspection by the building official. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

All errors and emphasis in original.

The Written Directive deadline was extended to January 19, 2025, at Respondent’s request.

After the expiration of the extended Written Directive, Investigator Melton conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection on February 7, 2025. Investigator Melton found that Respondent complied with all but Complaint item numbers 2 and 9. The Compliance Notes in relation to those two items of Complaint state the following:

Compliance Item 2: HVAC system needs to be installed

Investigator’s Initial Observation: System has not been installed. Respondent acknowledged that HVAC system is part of their scope. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

Complainant’s Current Concern: Unit has been installed, thermostat has not been installed. Unit not functional. I’d like to add here, that the air handler was installed where the water heater was supposed to go and the space is just too narrow for it. We wouldn’t be able to change the filter in the unit once the stucco and door frame will be completed. See pic below attached (IMG6916 and IMG6914).

Compliance Observation: On February 3, 2025, Complainant advised the Registrar that the only remaining inspection is the final inspection. Complainant is responsible for finishes which need to be completed prior to the final inspection. Respondent has complied with permit requirements for the work under their control. Thermostat is not yet installed. Per statement of Complainant, air handler was relocated from roof to its current location by mutual agreement. The current location is the called out location of a water heater which has been removed from Respondent’s scope. Complainant asserts and it appears that the opening does not allow for removal/replacement of filter or unit once trim is installed. Respondent accepted this location for installation of the unit.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Compliance Item 9: doors and windows need adjustments

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Doors have not been adjusted. Windows may not be installed in accordance with manufacturer recommendations, however, they cannot be inspected for workmanship at this time. The Registrar cannot inspect workmanship relative to work that is not complete or which requires permit and inspection by the building official. Respondent should complete their scope of work by appropriate methods and in accordance with estimate/contract, executed change orders, substantiated verbal agreements, specifications, approved permit drawings, building code/requirements of the local building authority (permit/inspection), manufacturer recommendations, industry and workmanship standards. Respondent should provide this Investigator with documentation of passed final permit/certificate of occupancy for the work they have performed.

Complainant’s Current Concern: The windows are still not corrected (see pictures). There is a nail flange that needs to be removed in order to get the windows to be flush with the outside. Right now it would collect water on top of the window and would eventually leak. All exterior doors still stick and rub steel on steel. Not addressed or mentioned at all. See picture IMG6917. I tried to take a video of the doors, but the file is too big. I’m worried about the seals being damaged to the lack of adjustment. The doors scrape over the seals and floors every day.

Compliance Observation: On February 3, 2025, Complainant advised the Registrar that the only remaining inspection is the final inspection. Complainant is responsible for finishes which need to be completed prior to the final inspection. Respondent has complied with permit requirements for the work under their control. After this inspection Complainant provided evidence from the manufacture that window install of two exterior windows is not per manufacturer recommendations. Complainant stated that the door concern is in regard to a very large sliding glass door (owner furnished/contractor installed). Complainant also stated that they have attempted to adjust the sliding glass door but it did not work. The work of the Respondent has been modified relative to the door. Windows are not installed in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

All errors in original.

Thereafter, Investigator Melton 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.

At the outset of the hearing, Complainant advised the Tribunal that the only remaining item of Complaint is Item Number 9, concerning the windows. Complaint item number 2 has been completed and has passed inspection by the local municipality.

Investigator Melton testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive and Compliance Notes. Investigator Melton testified that Complainant purchased the windows, however, they were installed by Respondent and they have been incorrectly installed as they are protruding and water infiltration could be an issue. Investigator Melton testified that the parties provided conflicting information from the manufacturer, located in China, regarding installation, as the manufacturer did not have an understanding as to whether the windows were installed in concrete or stucco.

Complainant testified that he agreed with Investigator Melton’s testimony. Complainant testified that it is common to remove the nail fins and that he brought this to the attention of Respondent on the day of installation, yet Respondent proceeded with the stucco installation without addressing the window installation issues. Complainant asserted that it would have been a “simple fix,” however, now the window openings need to be cut, re-stuccoed and re-painted.

Mr. Mirabal testified that nail fins are necessary as a weather barrier, to prevent water infiltration. Mr. Mirabal further testified that depending on what type of building material is used would dictate whether the nail fin needs to be removed. Mr. Mirabal asserted that a nail fin should be removed if installed in concrete masonry, but not in stucco, and that the windows are installed in stucco. Mr. Mirabel further asserted that Complainant provided the windows with no installation instructions, and that “if he wanted them installed differently, he should have provided information from the manufacturer.” Mr. Mirabel testified that the windows are installed correctly, even though they are varying depths.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 11, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 330213 was first issued on August 21, 2020, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are three open complaints, including the instant Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline 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. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. It was Respondent’s responsibility, as a licensed contractor, to ensure that the window installation was properly performed according to manufacturer specifications for the application for which they were purchased. 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 330213 for a period of three (3) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 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 12, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Lisa Melton

[email redacted]

Gabriel Custom Homes, LLC

[email redacted]

Mike Lehmann

Desert Remodel, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff