ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-14001-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Angela Lambert,

COMPLAINANT,

Home Revivers LLC,

DBA: Kitchen Tune-up of Gilbert,

License No. ROC 331030,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-14001-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 28, 2025, and January 20, 2026.

APPEARANCES:

For Complainant: Audrey Cohen-Davis; Angela Lambert.

For Respondent: Christian Lestinsky.

For the Registrar of Contractors: David Fagerburg.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar of Contractor’s Notice of Hearing Packet. Complainant’s Exhibits 1–68. Respondent’s Exhibits 1–12.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Home Revivers LLC, doing business as Kitchen Tune-up of Gilbert, (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 331030 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on October 20, 2020.

On or about March 27, 2024, Angela Lambert (Complainant) entered a contract with Respondent for, among other things, cabinet installation.

Respondent requested a building confidence program inspection, which occurred on or about December 3, 2024. Complainant decided against proceeding with that inspection, and the building confidence program was closed.

On or about December 28, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg, who performed a noticed jobsite inspection on February 25, 2025, and Respondent was present. On March 14, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent requiring Respondent to remedy the identified violations by appropriate means.

The Written Directive was amended on April 8, 2025, and the amended Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Fagerburg of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on April 25, 2025.

On June 25, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg performed a noticed compliance inspection; Compliance Items 1b, 1e, 4, 5, and 20 were deemed not completed.

On July 11, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on July 24, 2025.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing, and the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case on August 13, 2025.

Investigator Fagerburg testified in support of his findings. Compliance Item 1b: he testified that it was not corrected because exposed cabinet anchors and nails may be considered a structural deficiency; he testified that fabricated cabinets were designed with components to hold the frame together and damaging those components was not within his understanding of industry standards. Compliance Item 1e: he testified that it was not corrected because the large gap (at the kitchen sink drain) was covered by additional material, which was unsightly; he testified that a properly sized gap could be covered by a metal plate. He testified that the correction, while unsightly, was the best someone could do without replacing the back panel or the entire cabinet. Compliance Item 4: he testified that it was not corrected because the project was not finished; specifically, the floating shelves on either side of the kitchen stove and in the laundry room were not installed. He testified that Respondent sought additional information from Complainant about the shelves, and he understood that Respondent was not comfortable moving forward without more information. Compliance Item 5: he testified it was not corrected because one kitchen cabinet was installed with two different width face frames and an end panel that was not secured, the printer rollout tray would not allow the printer paper tray to fully open, and the cabinet layout appeared modified from the original design. He testified that the items which were not specifically identified in the directive were included in the requirement to complete the project. Compliance Item 20: he testified that it was not corrected because there was one scratch on the tile floor and a ding on the front door.

Investigator Fagerburg testified that Respondent attempted to comply with all the items listed other than the floating shelves (Compliance Item 4).

Complainant’s witnesses testified in support of the violations. They testified about their experience with the project and their displeasure and concerns. They argued that items Investigator Fagerburg deemed corrected should be considered as potential violations if the Complainant believed those items were not corrected.

Anthony Corvelli, Respondent’s owner, testified about why the project was taking longer than normal from the design phase through construction. He testified that he requested a building confidence inspection to help get everyone on the same page about how to proceed.

Mr. Corvelli testified about Complaint Items 1b and 1e: he disagreed that the cuts created a structural issue, stating that the component was secure and that installing the countertop would further secure the cabinet; he explained that the hole needed to be that large for the kitchen sink drain to fit during installation, and Respondent covered the hole. He testified about Complaint Item 4: he tried to get information from Complainant that Respondent needed to make sure Complainant would be happy with the end result, but Complainant refused to provide that information, instead referring Respondent to work they had previously done in the guest house and other information already provided. He testified about Complaint Item 5: he understood this item to have been completed before the compliance inspection, but the items identified as not corrected were not actually included in the Complaint Item and were not raised before the compliance inspection. He testified that Respondent did not know about the printer drawer issue, and Respondent was not given an opportunity to correct it. He testified that the cabinet layout was in line with the original proposal; he testified the angles were not normal, and Respondent tried to work with Complainant about how to make it work. He testified about the width of face frames with an unsecured component, including that Respondent offered to fix it but was refused. He testified about Complaint Item 20: he did not believe Respondent caused the scratches at issue, but Respondent corrected all but one of the scratches, which Respondent merely missed. He testified that he could not find the ding on the door because it was behind a plant; he still tried to match the color of the door’s paint, but he was not able to do so.

The parties communicated about installation of the shelves at issue in Complaint Item 4. On May 2, 2025, Respondent requested additional information about the sizing of shelves that Complainant wanted. After a back and forth about whose responsibility it was to get exact measurements, Complainant informed Respondent that Respondent had the information necessary to proceed and that Complainant would not be providing more information. Complainant’s position was that exact dimensions were Respondent’s responsibility, and Respondent should have provided a sketch or proposal for dimensions within the known perimeters. Respondent’s position was that it needed more information about sizing, such as where the shelves should come out to, before it was willing to have custom shelving made; Mr. Corvelli testified that it was not Complainant’s responsibility to get exact measurements for the shelves.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 5, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 331030 was active and had one open complaint.

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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.”

For the purposes of this hearing, Respondent only had notice of the alleged violations in the Citation. Accordingly, this Tribunal can only find violations of law that appeared in the Citation. Only alleged violations identified by the Investigator and deemed uncorrected are noticed in the Citation: as stated in the Citation, “[t]he Registrar investigated this matter and [found] cause to charge Respondent with violation(s).” Where the investigator did not find cause to charge Respondent, charges were not incorporated into the Citation.

The Registrar provides the Respondent an opportunity to correct its deficient work by appropriate means; without that opportunity, the alleged deficiency is not ripe for hearing.

On April 8, 2025, Respondent was informed that Complaint Item 8 would be appropriately resolved by following the manufacturer-recommended action, and Complaint Item 8 was identified as corrected. Accordingly, Complaint Item 8 was not noticed for hearing and cannot be considered herein.

In correcting work pursuant to a Written Directive From the Registrar, a contractor cannot damage property or create additional workmanship issues. Any damage or new deficiencies in workmanship must be fixed before the directive period ends. Attempting corrective work on a Directive item incurs a responsibility to perform that corrective work competently and in compliance with applicable standards. A new complaint and Directive are not required to hold a respondent responsible for its workmanship deficiencies when attempting such repairs.

When a Directive requires a contractor to complete its contract, the contractor is on notice that their work is under scrutiny, and they are required to comply with applicable standards when completing the project. Workmanship issues that arise during the completion of the contract are not different than workmanship issues that arise during other corrective work. The contractor is expected to perform their work appropriately and in conformance with applicable standards.

When a contractor is going to deviate from applicable standards, it should attain a specific wavier from a customer, notifying the customer of risks (such a waiver is not appropriate in all situations). After a customer makes a change that requires a contractor to either spend more money or deviate from applicable standards, the contractor generally has several options, including: (1) bidding the amendment, attaining a change order, and performing the necessary work, charging the customer for the amended scope; (2) offering a work-around, notifying the customer about the associated risks, and getting a waiver to deviate from applicable standards (when appropriate); (3) attaining a change order and performing the necessary work, gratis; or (4) refusing to accept the amended scope of work.

Complaint Item 1b: Respondent damaged the cabinet components in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A). Investigator Fagerburg believed manufactured cabinets should not be damaged and stated that he was not certain whether that damage would cause a structural issue. Respondent argued that the cuts were made to accommodate a change Complainant made and that the cuts would not harm the structural integrity of the cabinet. Although the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that the cuts caused structural integrity damage, Respondent did damage components to the cabinet. Furthermore, the record did not support that such damage was within the manufacturer guidelines or was otherwise in accordance with standards. Absent a waiver from Complainant or meaningful support that the damage done to the cabinet was harmless (rendering the cuts merely unsightly), the unauthorized damage to the cabinet was a violation of workmanship standards.

Complaint Item 1e: Respondent corrected the issue, and unsightliness was not a further violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A) under the circumstances. To correct the oversized gap, Respondent covered the gap with a slightly larger piece of material, which matched the cabinet backing, but it was deemed unsightly and not corrected. Unsightliness is not always a workmanship violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A). Whether unsightliness is a violation requires at least two key considerations (1) whether the issue will be visible and (2) the severity of the unsightliness. Here, the gap cover was located under a kitchen sink, which is not visible to anyone who is not specifically looking for it because it will be dark and obscured by pipes. Additionally, the covering is minimally offensive because it has a nearly identical color to the cabinet, and it has a reasonable size and shape.

Complaint Item 4: Respondent did not complete the project in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A). It was undisputed that Respondent did not install the cabinets at issue. In its defense, Respondent argued that Complainant refused to provide information required for Respondent to proceed. As a defense, that is most akin to functional denial of access (preventing Respondent from correcting an issue in an appropriate manner). However, Respondent did not attempt to correct the issue by appropriate means. Respondent had enough information to proceed as it would have done absent a complaint. Yet Respondent did not offer plans nor did Respondent purchase appropriate floating shelves (which would satisfy the contract) and install them. Complainant did not reject a proposal, refuse otherwise appropriate shelves, or deprive Respondent of information necessary to take appropriate next steps towards an appropriate correction. Accordingly, the affirmative defense fails.

Complaint Item 5: in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), Respondent did not dispute that a component of the kitchen area became unglued, and the printer drawer is slightly too deep; the evidence did not support that the desk area was improperly built. Respondent believed that Respondent had corrected the printer drawer, but it turned out to be just too shallow. The Notice of Hearing packet, at page 190 and 191, show that the drawer has a minimal lip, which can be simply corrected by adding a layer of fill wood, that should be filled to be fit for purpose. Respondent believed the desk was built in accordance with the contract. Complainant’s Exhibits, at LAMBERT000046 and LAMBERT000055, appear to provide drawing of the desk. The Complainant did not establish how the desk, as built, deviated from those drawings (or specify another set of drawings against which to compare the desk). Although Investigator Fagerburg took photographs of the depth of the desk, those measurements were not contrasted to an expected depth. Accordingly, the record does not support a violation on this issue.

In accordance with the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform some work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

In accordance with the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the preponderance of the evidence 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 for two days Respondent’s License No. 331030.

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, February 9, 2026.

/s/ Samuel Fox

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

David Fagerburg

[email redacted]

Christian T. Lestinsky, Esq.

LANG THAL KING & HANSON PC

[email redacted]

Home Revivers LLC

DBA: Kitchen Tune-up of Gilbert

[email redacted]

Angela Lambert

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff