ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-10935-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lindsey Adams,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Home Improvements and Moore LLC

License No. ROC 259906,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-10935-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 3, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Lindsey Adams, Complainant. Brian Moore on behalf of Home Improvements and Moore LLC. Investigator Joey Chester on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Registrar Exhibit A – Buyer and Seller Agreement.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Home Improvements and Moore LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 259906 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about, May 31, 2024, Lindsey Adams (“Complainant”) entered into a contract to purchase a home for $460,000.00. Respondent sold the home to Complainant which is located in Phoenix, Arizona.

On or about September 25, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the home.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Joey Chester. On October 28, 2024, a jobsite inspection took place with both parties present. On November 1, 2024, Investigator Chester issued a Written Directive to Respondent with a deadline of November 22, 2024.

On November 5, 2024, Investigator Chester issued a Written Directive – Updated & Extended with a deadline date of November 26, 2024. The difference between the two directives were the deadline date and Compliant Item 16 – Artificial Turf installed in backyard was added to this directive.

On November 18, 2024, Investigator Chester issued a Written Directive –Amended with a deadline date back to November 22, 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, November 22, 2024.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: Broken propane valve not fixed.

Investigator’s Observation: verified handle was broken and needs to be replaced. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means, using an appropriately licensed contractor.

. . . .

Complaint Item 2: Artificial turf not completed

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of inspection the turf is lifting in places and needs to be nailed down, respondent will need to correct by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 3: Self closing latch on pool fence not installed

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent stated that he has the latches just needs to attach them, respondent to fix by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 4: Cabinet hardware in kitchen and laundry room not installed

Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection, there are a couple cabinet doors that do not have hardware installed, respondent to fix by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 5: Skirting on house not caulked/repaired/replaced

Investigator’s Observation: Skirting is not secured around the house, respondent to correct by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 6: Backsplash in laundry room not sealed

Investigator’s Observation: Backsplash has been grouted just not sealed, respondent to seal grout by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 8: Door seal in laundry room not fixed

Investigator’s Observation: Door stops were put on pulling the trim away from door, respondent to correct by appropriate means.

. . . .

Compliant Item 9: Drywall in laundry room not done-still large hole in wall

Investigator’s Observation: Large drywall piece missing to cover up lines in wall, respondent will need to fix by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 14: septic covers need to be secured

Investigator’s Observation: Covers need to be secured to concrete surface, respondent to fix by appropriate means.

. . . .

Complaint Item 15: Between the shower and the flooring needs to be caulked

Investigator’s Observation: Verified no caulking between the two, respondent will correct by appropriate means.

. . . .

Following the issuance of the Written Directive - Amended, Respondent performed corrective work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Chester set up a Compliance Inspection on January 28, 2025. Both parties were present at the Compliance Inspection that provided as follows:

Complaint Item 1: Broken propane valve not fixed.

Compliance Observation: Complaint item had been corrected.

. . . .

Complaint Item 2: Artificial turn not completed

Compliance Observation: At the time of inspection the complaint item had not been corrected.

. . . .

Complaint Item 3: Self closing latch on pool fence not installed

Compliance Observation: Complaint item had been corrected.

. . . .

Complaint Item 4: Cabinet hardware in kitchen and laundry room not installed

Compliance Observation: Complaint item had been corrected

. . . .

Complaint Item 5: Skirting on house not caulked/repaired/replaced

Compliance Observation: Complaint item had been corrected

. . . .

Complaint Item 6: Backsplash in laundry room not sealed

Compliance Observation: Complaint item had been corrected

. . . .

Complaint Item 8: Door seal in laundry room not fixed

Compliance Observation: Complaint item had been corrected

. . . .

Complaint Item 9: Drywall in laundry room not done-still large hole in wall

Compliance Observation: Complaint item had been corrected

. . . .

Complaint Item 14: septic covers need to be secured

Compliance Observation: Complaint item had been corrected

. . . .

Complaint Item 15: Between the shower and the flooring needs to be caulked

Compliance Observation: Complaint item had been corrected

. . . .

On January 30, 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(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Chester testified that there was only one outstanding issue after the compliance inspection. The one outstanding issue, Complaint Item 2, consisted of the artificial turf that was already installed and needed to be nailed down in a few areas in the backyard. Complaint Item 2 is different than Complaint Item 16 which was included in the November 5, 2024 Written Directive but was removed from the final Written Directive – Amended issued on November 18, 2024. Investigator Chester recalled that, at the compliance inspection, the parties agreed to let Respondent come back that Friday, January 31, 2025, to fix Complaint Item 2 then the complaint would be closed. However, Complainant called Investigator Chester later that day, and informed him that she no longer wanted Respondent back at the property and requested that the matter be forwarded to legal. Investigator Chester testified that after Respondent received the Citation, Brian Moore qualifying party on behalf of Respondent, called him and inquired why his company had been cited. Investigator Chester informed him that it was Complainant’s call and it was out of his hands.

Complainant testified that prior to her purchase of the home she met Mr. Moore and he informed her that the additional roll of turf that sat in the backyard would be installed. Complainant’s main argument is that the installation and proper workmanship of the turf was a part of the purchase price of the house and part of the real estate contract.

In regards to the Compliance Inspection, Complainant testified that initially she agreed to allow Mr. Moore to come back to the property on that Friday to fix Complaint Item 2. However, after everyone left her home, she no longer felt comfortable to have Mr. Moore back to her home and she informed Investigator Chester of her decision.

Complainant testified that at one point Respondent’s license went inactive and at the jobsite inspection, Investigator Chester informed Respondent to reactivate his license. Mr. Moore reactivated his license prior to working on Written Directive items.

Mr. Moore testified that in the Residential Resale Real Estate Purchase Contract there is no mention of turf. The Residential Buyer’s Inspection Notice and Seller’s Response (BINSR) which included the Buyer Inspections and Investigations Completed and the Seller’s Response had no mention of turf. Mr. Moore argued that the turf was “a gift” because it was not included in the real estate contract and “turf” only magically appeared in the Buyer Pre-Closing Walkthrough with no knowledge to him. Mr. Moore testified that there was a bunch of used turf sitting on a pallet in the backyard and he informed Complainant that if he were to keep the house then he would have installed the additional turf. Mr. Moore stated that he told Complainant he would gift the additional turf to her but the installation was not a part of the real estate contract and it would be a gift.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 3, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 259906 was first issued on December 24, 2009, and is Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there has been no discipline issued against this 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 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, the only issue before the Tribunal is Complaint Item 2 and whether or not Respondent was responsible to tack down the existing turf in the needed areas. In absence of a specific contract detailing any turf work, then the Tribunal will rely upon the real estate contract documents, which are admitted into the record. Mr. Moore provided credible testimony that the installation of the used turf or tacking down the already installed turf was not a part of the real estate contract. The weight of the evidence favors Respondent’s testimony because the real estate documents provided do not mention anything about turf until the Buyer Pre-Closing Walkthrough.

The evidence established that multiple Written Directives were issued by Investigator Chester and the final amended Directive included the removal of the installation of the turf as a complaint item. In furtherance, the evidence established that Complaint Item 2 may have erroneously been ,included in the Written Directive - Amended, as well because the turf, in any capacity, was not contracted work per the real estate documents. Therefore, Respondent is not responsible for Complaint Item 2. Hence, there are no other items that need to be corrected by Respondent. Even if, the Registrar believes that Complaint Item 2 is Respondent’s responsibility, tacking down existing turf is de minimis and does not warrant discipline.

Therefore, the evidence established that Respondent’s work was in conformity with the Registrar’s standards and there is no violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A). In addition, Respondent did adhere to the final Amended Written Directive, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22) and because he was able to complete all of the items in the Amended Directive, discipline is not warranted.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order in this matter, the Registrar close Complainant’s complaint in Case No. 2024-10935 against Respondent’s License No. 259906.

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 30, 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]

Joey Chester

[email redacted]

Home Improvements and Moore LLC

3120 W Carefree Hwy

Ste 1-785

Phoenix, AZ 85086

[email redacted]

Lindsey Adams

1815 E La Salle Rd.

Phoenix, AZ 85086

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff