ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-11520-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Samuel Goddard,

COMPLAINANT

v.

SUNSET CONSTRUCTION, LLC

License No. ROC 340299,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-11520-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 8, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Samuel Goddard was represented by Ellen B, Davis and appeared via Google Meet. James Gastineau appeared on behalf of Respondent Sunset Construction LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Robert Di Alto appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-102.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Sunset Construction LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 340299 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about January 1, 2024, the parties entered into a construction contract for a remodel of his home located in Phoenix, Arizona.

On or about October 28, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Robert Di Alto. The jobsite inspection was performed on November 20, 2024.

Investigator Di Alto then issued a Written Directive on or about December 4, 2024, which provided in pertinent 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 12/27/2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Section of roof installed where fireplace was removed is shoddy work. Contractor redid the work shingles still buckling.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The fascia at the described location is poorly installed, and appears to be raised at both ends + 3/8” at each end creating readily visible humps at each end. The Complainant stated that the

Respondent removed the existing chimney at this location. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means, and obtain all proper permits as required by the authority having jurisdiction, and obtain final approval.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 4 - 35+ instances in attic of exposed wires not in junction boxes. Contractor didn't alert us and left us with safety hazard

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct

this issue by the appropriate means where these conditions exist (new work performed by Respondent). Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means and obtain permits and final approval from the authority having jurisdiction.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 5 - Multiple sliding glass doors don't securely lock due to

improper installation. Safety hazard.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Two of the three sliding patio doors

operate poorly and are difficult to open and close. I was able to lock and unlock the doors at the time of this inspection. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 6 - Front door does not have the proper type or quantity of screws to securely lock.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed that the long screws that

secure the dead bolt latch to the door jamb and framing were approximately 1 1⁄4” and do not reach the king stud. It appears as if the wrong hardware has been installed at the described location. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 10 - Inconsistent and patchy drywall texture throughout entire home

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed several areas throughout

the residence where the wall texture is inconsistent, and incomplete. I also

observed that the ceilings appear to be incomplete and are not smooth finish as specified in the contract. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means where these conditions exist.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 11 - Incomplete paint job on doors, trim, baseboard, walls

and cabinets

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the described conditions

throughout including: interior doors, trim. The Respondent shall correct by

the appropriate means where these conditions exist.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 12 - Cabinet handles were never installed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There were no cabinet pulls or knobs

installed at the time of this inspection. Cabinet doors are full overlay type and do require pulls or knobs to open and close. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 14 - Many holes in drywall throughout home that require

patching

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are several areas throughout

the residence where walls have cut outs and are open. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 15 - Office pocket doors do not open or close properly due

to improper installation even after multiple attempts to rectify

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The doors operate poorly and appear to need to be adjusted or installed to open and close smoothly. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 16 - Multiple doors throughout home installed and hung

incorrectly. Don’t open or close properly.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed al interior doors are installed poorly. Doors do not appear to be plumb and are poorly fit into existing door jambs. Reveals are inconsistent at jambs and door stop on all three sides. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 21 - Un-repaired holes in stucco on walls outside of master bedroom sliding glass doors

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 22 - Floor panels in guest bathroom are not flush with tub leaving exposed gaps between floor and tub

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is a visible gap between the wood flooring and the tile at the described location. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 23 - Floor panels underneath guest bathroom vanity were improperly installed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 24 - Guest bathroom vanity is un-level and sitting on wooden chips to level it out

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The vanity I observed has furniture type legs and there is a visible shim at the described location. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 25 - Floor panels in master bathroom are not flush with tile in water closet leaving a gap between the floor and tile

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is visible lippage at the

described location. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 27 - The framing on pocket doors and sliding glass doors are dropping in the center

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is a readily visible droop at the center of the opening. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 28 - Popcorn ceiling confirmed via testing to contain asbestos has not been remediated in mudroom and garage.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 29 - Caulking is either nonexistent or inadequate in many areas of the house, interior & exterior e.g. baseboards, windows

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means where these conditions exist.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 30 - Laundry room door is not installed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 35 - Outlet for garbage disposal was installed behind dishwasher where it cannot be unplugged without removing dishwasher

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means, and will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 36 - Outlet on island was installed too low, against code

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means, and will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 38 - Recessed ceiling can lights have gaps in drywall around them, not installed properly

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means where these conditions exist.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 41 - Inspection Rpt pg3 Item #8 Trim on exterior of kitchen windows and sliding glass door is not properly caulked or painted

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means, where these conditions exist.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 50 - Insp.Rpt. pg5 #11: Windows & Screens: Dual Pane:

Most Windows (see sample pictures): Gapped caulking at frame perimeters

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means, where these conditions exist.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely

A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship...

On January 2, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(18); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about January 17, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about February 12, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on March 17, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Di Alto testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings from his jobsite inspection.

Investigator Di Alto testified that no compliance jobsite inspection was performed because Complainant had informed him that no work had been completed during the corrective work period.

Further, Investigator Di Alto testified that the original Qualifying Party, Mr. Capone had disassociated from Respondent in November 2023.

As to abandonment, Investigator Di Alto testified that drywall was not completed, and that the popcorn ceiling removal had not been completed for example.

Complainant testified that he found Respondent on Angie’s list and was unaware that there was a change in its Qualifying Party status, and would not have hired Respondent if he knew they were not licensed.

Further, Complainant testified that he paid approximately $20,000.00 over and above the original contract price.

Complainant also testified that if changes were needed they were completed via a change order and paid for. However, Complainant testified that there were other changes which needed to be made at Respondent’s own expense because his workers did not follow the original plans.

In addition, Complainant testified that there were repairs done to the roof and grout, for example which were not really repaired.

Complainant testified that Mr. Gastineau and his workers had reasonable access to the property as late has October 2024, and that there was no further work performed, and including during the corrective work period.

Finally, Complainant testified that he was not made aware by Mr. Gastineau as to his health issues as a possible reason for delay.

Mr. Gastineau testified that Mr. Capone had disassociated as the Qualifying Party in November of 2024. Also, Mr. Gastineau testified that he attempted to become licensed and passed the test, but had not followed up with the Registrar because of this project.

In addition, Mr. Gastineau testified that Complainant had a “hard stop” at spending $200,000.00, but that there were a lot of changes he requested, and had to perform the same at his own cost. For example, Mr. Gastineau testified that either Complainant or his wife would say that something did not look good, so they would have to change it, as there were 96 holes in one section of drywall.

Mr. Gastineau also testified that he suffered a mental breakdown, and could not, and did not communicate the nature of his illness to Complainant, nor did he request an extension of the Directive to Investigator Di Alto.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 23, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 340299 was first issued on August 19, 2022, and reflected that there were a total of two open cases, one of which was the present case and one disciplined case. The License record also indicated that it was suspended as of December 30, 2024 due to lack of qualifying party.

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 violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano 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).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), as there was no work performed, nor communication from Mr. Gastineau once he suffered his mental health incident.

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the work performed on Directive Items 1, 4-6, 10-12, 14-16, 21-25, 27-30, 35-36, 38, 41, and 50, were not completed in a workmanlike manner.

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8), as the project was not completed within the price stated in the contract and/or change orders, as there were many items not fully completed.

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(18), as it appeared that in November 2023, Mr. Capone was no longer a partial owner of Respondent, and therefore could not be Respondent’s Qualifying Party. Further, since that time, Respondent has had no Qualifying Party.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed 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 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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 340299.

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 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, May 23, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Sunset Construction, LLC

[email redacted]

Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff