ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-12499-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Denise Harper,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Gabriel Custom Homes LLC,
License No. ROC 330213,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-12499-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: September 8, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Denise Harper appeared on her own behalf via Google Meet. Gabriel Mirabel appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent Gabriel Custom Homes LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Fagerburg appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibit A was admitted into evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Gabriel Custom Homes LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 330213 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about May 22, 2022, Complainant hired Respondent to build a single-family residence in Scottsdale, Arizona.
On or about November 19, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg. The jobsite inspection was performed on December 30, 2025.
Investigator Fagerburg then issued a Written Directive on or about January 30, 2025, 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 Friday February 21, 2025.
Investigator Notes:
1: complaint item 4 has been separated into 2 individual complaint items and will be addressed as complaint items 4a and 4b for clarity.
2: Upon reviewing the written contract submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is at least 1 of the 9 minimum elements of a contract missing violating ARS §32- 1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract. Specifically #9. Warning letter issued.
Complaint Narrative: This house was supposed to take 10 months, per contract the house was to be "mostly done in 150 days". Its under 2k sq ft. Its been over 2 years, I should have submitted this LONG ago but threats from builder about lawsuits and property liens scared me. Work is poor and every repair is a fight. He doesn't pay his subs so they no show.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: tile damage grout color inconsistency
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation at the upstairs master bathroom shower the complainant showed me where the grout has an inconsistent color. The respondent acknowledged an attempt on 2 separate occasions was made to repair grout that was inadequate or loose and falling out. The complainant stated that only natural products have been used to clean the shower tile. The respondent acknowledged the grout is a dry mix. I am able to verify the grout color in the master bathroom shower is inconsistent. See P (3) and P (4). The respondent shall correct the inconsistent grout color throughout by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 2: kitchen floating shelves not secure, not straight
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a set of floating shelves installed on the kitchen wall. The upper shelf moves when slightly lifting on it, sags and is not secure. The upper shelf also has a gap on the right side and is not square with the adjacent wall. See P (5) thru P (7). The respondent shall correct the kitchen floating shelves that are sagging and not secure by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 3: large doors not sealed in/out
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation at 3 sliding glass doors I observed interior caulking that has separated from the LVP flooring to slider frames. The gap at the frames is not at least 3/8” See P (8) thru P (17). The respondent showed me where there are weep holes for water to drain away from the sliding door exterior frame and it appears the weep holes are clear and I did not observe any evidence of water penetration. See P (18). On January 10, 2025 the complaint provided a copy of the Cali Vinyl Legends manufacturers installation specifications for floating click lock. Upon review the LVP flooring installation requires at least a 3/8” expansion space around the perimeter as well as all fixed objects. The respondent shall correct the LVP flooring that is not installed per the manufacturer’s installation specifications and ensure the large doors are sealed throughout by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (2) (A) Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications, ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 4a: caulking separating through house LVP errors, cuts, stair nosing separating, glue and nails coming apart
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me 2 downstairs sliding glass doors where the LVP floating floor system has been caulked at the threshold and side jambs. The caulking has separated from the sliding glass door frame and side jams and it appears there is not enough of a gap at the side jamb for expansion and contraction. See P (8) thru P (12). At the upstairs sliding glass door the LVP flooring has been caulked or glued and there are pin nails at the flooring joints just before the sliding door threshold. I am able to verify the flooring joint has separated at that location. The complainant pointed out that at the threshold of the sliding door the LVP flooring is not level and angles up at the door frame. See P (13) thru P (20). On January 10, 2025 the complaint provided a copy of the Cali Vinyl Legends manufacturers installation specifications for floating click lock. Upon review the LVP flooring installation requires at least a 3/8” expansion space around the perimeter as well as all fixed objects and never nail or screw anything through a floated floor. The installation requires all floors to be flat within 3/16” per 10 foot radius. The angle of the LVP flooring at the upstairs sliding glass door appears to be greater than 3/16”. See P (14). The respondent shall correct the LVP flooring that is not installed per the manufacturer’s installation specifications and correct the separating caulking by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (2) (A) Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications, ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 4b: LVP errors, cuts, stair nosing separating, glue and nails coming apart
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation midway up the stairs on the 2nd landing the complainant showed me where the stair nosing is cut into 2 pieces with pin nails at the joint. At the next stair landing the stair nosing is 1 piece. The stair nosing installed at the 2 locations are not uniform. See P (19) and P (20). The respondent shall correct the stair noising at the 2 landings that is not uniform by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 5: wrong drywall used poor mud wrong, seams corners, nails showing skip trowel 90/10 not done correct, drywall repairs poor
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I am unable to determine whether or not the wrong drywall or mud was used. During this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me various areas throughout the interior of the home with drywall finish texture defects and a bump at the wall to ceiling joint. See P (21) thru P (27). I did not observe any nails showing. The 90/10 skip trowel finish is not uniform at the stairwell as well as next to a window and there is peeling paint and texture at the stair risers. See P (24), P (26) and P (29). There is also what appears to be a hole or a tear in the drywall surface at 1 of the can lights at the entry ceiling. See P (25). The respondent shall correct the poor drywall repairs, the 90/10 skip trowel finish that is not uniform throughout by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 6: poor painting- builder expects painters to fix drywall or cover up - does not work, getting worse wrong sheens
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where there have been drywall repairs painted with the wrong sheen behind the TV in the master bedroom and other various walls throughout the home. See P (27) thru P (29). I am unable to determine who may have performed the drywall repairs. The respondent shall correct the drywall repairs painted with the wrong sheen and ensure the paint sheen is uniform throughout by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 7: ELECTRICAL- lights flashing in 4 rooms when water is turned on. Dimmer switch blamed, new switches placed, no change
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation both parties agree the home is supplied with an underground water storage tank and when the water supply pump is running the lights flicker in 4 different rooms. Both parties agree dimmer switches were replaced for some of the lights and the problem was not resolved. During this jobsite investigation I did observe lights flicker at 2 locations. Prior to this jobsite investigation the complainant provided 3 short videos with audio and the sound of water running in the background showing lights flickering at 3 different locations. The respondent shall determine cause and correct the flickering lights in 4 rooms by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 8: chandelier hung crooked- pulses light,
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a chandelier installed at the entry of the home that has a gap around the base plate. See P (25) and P (32). I did not observe the chandelier pulsing light at that time. The respondent acknowledged the chandelier is hung crooked and agreed to correct the light fixture.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 9: never fixed ceiling drywall bubbles- builder said would fix – never touched
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged and agreed the ceiling drywall bubbles require correction near the chandelier in the entry to the home. It is difficult to see in P (25).
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Addendum Complaint Item 4: Garage door every panel has large bubbles- he said the new ones were on a container from China Months ago.
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where there is a bubble in the upper left panel of the garage door. While pushing on the bubble it appears the panel has buckled and made a popping sound. See P (37) and P (38). The respondent argues that he did not make the door and has no control over the quality of the garage door. During this jobsite investigation the respondent did not deny the garage doors need to be replaced and acknowledged the garage door panels are buckled, a new door was ordered and has been received. I am unable to determine how the garage doors may have buckled. The respondent shall ensure the buckled garage door panels affected are replaced with new garage door panels received by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.. . .
On February 24, 2025, and Amended Directive was issued to state:
Upon further review it has been determined that during the jobsite inspection the respondent did acknowledge responsibility for the damage caused to the refrigerator. All other items listed on the original Written Directive issued January 30, 2025 remain standing.
On May 13, 2025, an Amended #2 Written Directive was issued 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 Thursday June 5, 2025.
. . .
All items listed on the original Written Directive issued January 30, 2025 and the Amended Written Directive issued February 24, 2025 remain standing.
Addendum Complaint Item 1: Upstairs master bedroom large door. This door is not sealed or has other issues allowing water in, wind and dirt also blow though. This was discussed previously, however now a large leak occurred with water flooding into room over 5 feet to rug and under the bed. I am now concerned with water damage as the floor near window is not flat and the planks are not installed properly. I would like this door assessed and fixed and the water damaged evaluated, as well as floor repaired ( on previous order-not done)
Investigator’s Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation using a garden hose the complainant demonstrated that water is leaking at the large upstairs master bedroom sliding glass door. During the water test I observed water coming into the sliding glass door track and immediately request the complainant stop as the water would have spilled onto the LVP floating flooring. The weep holes on the exterior of the sliding glass door frame appear to be allowing some of the water to drain in the track but at a slow rate. See P (8). The complainant showed me where a previous leak during a wind and rain event leaked water into the room causing a water stain on the bed frame material. See P (3) thru P (9). Prior to this addendum jobsite investigation the complainant provided photos of the water leaking into the master bedroom during a wind and rain event. The respondent shall determine the cause of the leak at the upstairs master bedroom large sliding glass door by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Addendum Complaint Item 2: New leak the day of storm in great room- Transom windows leaked from the bottom sill down to casement window (on right), to that sill and onto floor. (Pictures and video provided previously) Water staining present as well as new drywall corner edges poking out. I would like this area assessed for water damage, the windows sealed or roof assessed if not windows and drywall repair on corner.
Investigator’s Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation I observed upper transom windows in the great room with water stains on the wall just below the upper transom windows and running down to the window sill below. See P (10) thru P (13). I also observed drywall corner edges poking out at the lower window. See P (15). Prior to this addendum jobsite investigation the complainant provide photos of the transom windows leaking during a wind and rain event. The respondent shall determine the cause of the leak at the upper transom windows in the great room and correct the damages caused to the drywall corner by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Addendum Complaint Item 3: Left casement window in great room stuck and will not open or close.
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify the left casement window in the great room is stuck and will not open. See P (14). The respondent shall determine the cause of the left casement window in the great room that is stuck and will not open and correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Addendum Complaint Item 4: Great room large door - outside stucco at edging was patched by builders “guys” - was supposed to be done by stucco specialist. It is discolored with a different texture and not even. Please have repaired by a person in that trade.
Investigator’s Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation in the great room at the large sliding glass door I observed a stucco repair with a texture and paint color that is not uniform. See P (16) and P (17). The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Addendum Complaint Item 5: Downstairs bathroom shower grout discolored, uneven.
Investigator’s Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation in the downstairs bathroom shower I observed a grout color between some of the wall tiles that is not a consistent color with the surrounding grout with white versus dark tones. See P (18) thru P (23). The respondent shall correct the downstairs bathroom shower grout that is discolored and not uniform by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Addendum Complaint Item 6: Nail pops through home - many areas circled previously by builder- states he will address at 1 year, would like addressed now as drywall mud and texture need done as well, as well as the correct sheen of paint applied though home and done in a satisfactory manner -
Investigator’s Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation the complainant showed me areas throughout the interior of the home with nails pops and other drywall blemishes. See P (24) thru P (28). The respondent shall correct the drywall with nail pops and other blemishes throughout the interior and paint to match the existing sheen by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Addendum Complaint Item 7: Outside. Please have glass removed from front of house
Investigator’s Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged that during the new home build a window was broken and replaced leaving broken glass on the ground. See P (29). The respondent shall remove the broken glass at the front yard by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Addendum Complaint Item 8: Outside. Brush pile was to be taken away almost a year ago- has still not been done, this was brush removed from area where rip-rap was placed in front of home. Please remove brush.
Investigator’s Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation the respondent agreed to remove the brush pile left at the front yard. See P (30).
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Addendum Complaint Item 9: I noticed this in the garage today, below my big door at the balcony.
Investigator’s Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where there appears to be a leak in the roof above the garage causing the drywall texture and paint to ripple. See P (31) and P (32). The respondent shall determine the cause of the leak above the garage and correct the damages caused by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Addendum Complaint Item 10: The other items I also noticed recently. The nick in my stucco is where they had stacked the scaffolding when the electrician/first drywall guys were here.
Investigator’s Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation I observed a nick in the stucco at the south exterior wall. See P (33). The respondent stated that he was not on the jobsite the day the electrician and drywall contractor were onsite performing corrective work in the stairwell of the home and was unaware of the damages. The damage was not observed at the original jobsite investigation conducted on December 30, 2024 at 11:30 am. It is more likely than not that the nick in the exterior stucco at the south exterior wall occurred while staging scaffolding and performing corrective work and is likely the result of the respondent’s subcontractor’s poor workmanship. The respondent shall correct the damage caused to the stucco at the exterior south wall by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
A compliance jobsite inspection was performed on June 18, 2025. In his notes regarding the same Investigator Fagerburg found the following in pertinent part:
Compliance Jobsite General Notes:
The respondent was not present at this compliance jobsite inspection
. . .
Compliance Findings:
. . .
Complaint Item 2: kitchen floating shelves not secure, not straight
Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a set of floating shelves installed on the kitchen wall. The upper shelf moves when slightly lifting on it, sags and is not secure. The upper shelf also has a gap on the right side and is not square with the adjacent wall. See P (5) thru P (7). The respondent shall correct the kitchen floating shelves that are sagging and not secure by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: The floating shelves have been adequately secured but the gap between the shelf and the range hood was filled with material that is not uniform with the floating shelf material with an end grain facing the front that is unsightly. See P (4) thru P (6).
Governing Rule: The respondent is not incompliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 3: large doors not sealed in/out
Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this jobsite investigation at 3 sliding glass doors I observed interior caulking that has separated from the LVP flooring to slider frames. The gap at the frames is not at least 3/8” See P (8) thru P (17). The respondent showed me where there are weep holes for water to drain away from the sliding door exterior frame and it appears the weep holes are clear and I did not observe any evidence of water penetration. See P (18). On January 10, 2025 the complaint provided a copy of the Cali Vinyl Legends manufacturers installation specifications for floating click lock. Upon review the LVP flooring installation requires at least a 3/8” expansion space around the perimeter as well as all fixed objects. The respondent shall correct the LVP flooring that is not installed per the manufacturer’s installation specifications and ensure the large doors are sealed throughout by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: During an addendum jobsite investigation conducted on April 30, 2025 at 1:30 pm a water test was performed and it was determined that the large door at the primary bedroom leaked. During this compliance jobsite inspection the complainant stated that during a recent rain storm the large door at the primary bedroom still leaks. A water test was not performed again. It is more likely than not that the large door at the primary bedroom continues to leak. The complainant did not mention any other large sliding glass doors leaking. See P (7) and P (8).
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A)(3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 4a: caulking separating through house LVP errors, cuts, stair nosing separating, glue and nails coming apart
Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me 2 downstairs sliding glass doors where the LVP floating floor system has been caulked at the threshold and side jambs. The caulking has separated from the sliding glass door frame and side jams and it appears there is not enough of a gap at the side jamb for expansion and contraction. See P (8) thru P (12). At the upstairs sliding glass door the LVP flooring has been caulked or glued and there are pin nails at the flooring joints just before the sliding door threshold. I am able to verify the flooring joint has separated at that location. The complainant pointed out that at the threshold of the sliding door the LVP flooring is not level and angles up at the door frame. See P (13) thru P (20). On January 10, 2025 the complaint provided a copy of the Cali Vinyl Legends manufacturer’s installation specifications for floating click lock. Upon review the LVP flooring installation requires at least a 3/8” expansion space around the perimeter as well as all fixed objects and never nail or screw anything through a floated floor. The installation requires all floors to be flat within 3/16” per 10 foot radius. The angle of the LVP flooring at the upstairs sliding glass door appears to be greater than 3/16”. See P (14). The respondent shall correct the LVP flooring that is not installed per the manufacturer’s installation specifications and correct the separating caulking by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: The LVP floating floor system has caulking at the perimeter walls throughout the home with no indication that there is at least a 3/8” gap for expansion and contraction. See P (9), P (10), P (12), P (13), P (31) and P (32). The LVP floating floor system is not installed per the Cali Vinyl Legends manufacturer’s installation specifications.
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (2) (A) Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications, ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4- 9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 4b: LVP errors, cuts, stair nosing separating, glue and nails coming apart
Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this jobsite investigation midway up the stairs on the 2nd landing the complainant showed me where the stair nosing is cut into 2 pieces with pin nails at the joint. At the next stair landing the stair nosing is 1 piece. The stair nosing installed at the 2 locations are not uniform. See P (19) and P (20). The respondent shall correct the stair noising at the 2 landings that is not uniform by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: The stair nosing has been replaced and appears to be installed per the manufacturer’s installation specifications. There are nails securing the flooring at some locations and field cuts in the flooring that are not factory end joints. See P (9) thru P (11) and P (13). The LVP floating floor system is not installed per the Cali Vinyl Legends manufacturer’s installation specifications.
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (2) (A) Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications, ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4- 9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 5: wrong drywall used poor mud wrong, seams corners, nails showing skip trowel 90/10 not done correct, drywall repairs poor
Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this jobsite investigation I am unable to determine whether or not the wrong drywall or mud was used. During this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me various areas throughout the interior of the home with drywall finish texture defects and a bump at the wall to ceiling joint. See P (21) thru P (27). I did not observe any nails showing. The 90/10 skip trowel finish is not uniform at the stairwell as well as next to a window and there is peeling paint and texture at the stair risers. See P (24), P (26) and P (29). There is also what appears to be a hole or a tear in the drywall surface at 1 of the can lights at the entry ceiling. See P (25). The respondent shall correct the poor drywall repairs, the 90/10 skip trowel finish that is not uniform throughout by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: The complainant stated that the respondent made an attempt to correct some of the drywall deficiencies. Upon observation there are still numerous deficiencies in the drywall finish including nail pops, cracks at the corner bead and the 90/10 drywall texture is not uniform with numerous flat areas with no texture. See P (14) thru P (22).
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 6: poor painting- builder expects painters to fix drywall or cover up – does not work, getting worse wrong sheens
Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where there have been drywall repairs painted with the wrong sheen behind the TV in the master bedroom and other various walls throughout the home. See P (27) thru P (29). I am unable to determine who may have performed the drywall repairs. The respondent shall correct the drywall repairs painted with the wrong sheen and ensure the paint sheen is uniform throughout by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: The paint behind the TV in the primary bedroom has been corrected. The remainder of the interior walls with different sheens of paint has not been addressed as the drywall repairs have not been completed. See P (14) thru P (22). The interior window sill at the southeast side of the great room does not have any primer or finish paint applied. See P (25).
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
. . .
Addendum #2 Complaint Item 1: Upstairs master bedroom large door. This door is not sealed or has other issues allowing water in, wind and dirt also blow though. This was discussed previously, however now a large leak occurred with water flooding into room over 5 feet to rug and under the bed. I am now concerned with water damage as the floor near window is not flat and the planks are not installed properly. I would like this door assessed and fixed and the water damaged evaluated, as well as floor repaired ( on previous order-not done)
Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation using a garden hose the complainant demonstrated that water is leaking at the large upstairs master bedroom sliding glass door. During the water test I observed water coming into the sliding glass door track and immediately request the complainant stop as the water would have spilled onto the LVP floating flooring. The weep holes on the exterior of the sliding glass door frame appear to be allowing some of the water to drain in the track but at a slow rate. See P (8). The complainant showed me where a previous leak during a wind and rain event leaked water into the room causing a water stain on the bed frame material. See P (3) thru P (9). Prior to this addendum jobsite investigation the complainant provided photos of the water leaking into the master bedroom during a wind and rain event. The respondent shall determine the cause of the leak at the upstairs master bedroom large sliding glass door by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: During an addendum jobsite investigation conducted on April 30, 2025 at 1:30 pm a water test was performed and it was determined that the large door at the primary bedroom leaked. During this compliance jobsite inspection the complainant stated that during a recent rain storm the large door at the primary bedroom still leaks. A water test was not performed again. It is more likely than not that the large door at the primary bedroom continues to leak. The complainant did not mention any other large sliding glass doors leaking. See P (7) and P (8). This is related to complaint item 3.
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
. . .
Addendum #2 Complaint Item 6: Nail pops through home - many areas circled previously by builder- states he will address at 1 year, would like addressed now as drywall mud and texture need done as well, as well as the correct sheen of paint applied though home and done in a satisfactory manner -
Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation the complainant showed me areas throughout the interior of the home with nails pops and other drywall blemishes. See P (24) thru P (28). The respondent shall correct the drywall with nail pops and other blemishes throughout the interior and paint to match the existing sheen by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: There has been no attempt by the respondent to correct the nail pops throughout the home. See P (14), P (15) and P (22).
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED. . .
On June 30, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158; A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about July 15, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about July 24, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on September 8, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
The hearing was held on September 4, 2025.
At hearing, Investigator Fagerburg testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.
Investigator Fagerburg testified that in addition to the above findings, he issued a Warning Letter to Respondent regarding its failure to meet the minimum elements in the parties’ contract, specifically number 9.
In addition, Investigator Fagerburg testified that Respondent was contracting beyond the scope if its license when her installed various plumbing features.
Finally, Investigator Fagerburg testified that he disagreed with Respondent’s assertions in its Answer to the complaint.
Complainant’s testimony echoed Investigator Fagerburg’s. Too, Complainant testified that Respondent plumbed everything in the house, and that he would not make the necessary repairs to the walls. She testified that she even provided bids from her own contractor to make the repairs and have Respondent pay for the same, but Mr. Mirabal refused.
Mr. Mirabal testified that he believed all of the work was corrected to his best effort, and completed per the Directive. Mr. Mirabal further testified that he did everything in his power to make Complainant happy.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 24, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 330213 was first issued on August 21, 2022 and reflected that there were three open case, one of which included the present case.
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 the floors were not built to the manufactures plans or specifications in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).
The preponderance of the evidence also established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as there were numerous workmanship issues as described above.
The preponderance of the evidence established that there was no “right to file language” in the parties’ contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16) as Respondent installed plumbing in the house for which he was not licensed.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established many items remained incomplete. The tribunal disputes the veracity of Mr. Mirabal’s statements both in his Answer at hearing that he fully complied with the Directive. 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 No. 330213 for a period of ten business days.
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.
It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to provide the Registrar with a proper sample contract which complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158. It is also recommended that Respondent’s license remain suspended until he complies with the same.
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 24, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Gabriel Custom Homes LLC
[email redacted]
Denise Harper
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff