ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-01203-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kimberly Winterhalter,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Pickett Hagen Builders Inc,

License No. ROC 315985,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-01203-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 22, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Kim and Eric Winterhalter

Respondent: Wendel Pickett

Chris Hagen

Registrar of Contractors: David Fagerburg, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

Complainant’s Exhibits 1-7

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Pickett Hagen Builders Inc. (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 315985 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on November 1, 2017.

On or about September 22, 2020, Kimberly and Eric Winterhalter (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new home build.

On or about February 11, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on February 13, 2025, scheduling the inspection for March 20, 2025. On February 18, 2025, the jobsite inspection was rescheduled to March 25, 2025.

Investigator Fagerburg conducted the jobsite inspection on March 25, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Fagerburg issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on April 25, 2025 that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item 2: Front entry stairs cracked in multiple places

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation at the front entry concrete stairs I observed cracks that have been repaired and repairs that are loose and crumbling at some locations. The overall finish is unsightly and some of the control joints have jagged edges. There are also stains in the surface. See P (3) thru P (8). Per ROC Workmanship Standards there is no acceptable tolerance for improper, inadequate or unsightly finishing. The respondent shall correct the front entry concrete stairs with loose and crumbling repairs and unsightly finishing by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 3: Remove rust stains that dripped from roof deck cover

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent made an attempt to wipe the rust stains that appear to have dripped from the roof deck cover bolts. The respondent stated that the cause of the rust stains was due to water not being allowed to drain from the tubular metal supports beams and a hole was drilled at the bolt locations to allow water to drain and the issue has been corrected. See P (9) thru P (14). The respondent shall ensure the cause of the rust stains has been corrected, remove the rust stains from the concrete surface and patio furniture covers by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 5: Garage floor sunken under left bay so water gets in and pools

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the garage of the home I observed a concrete slab with a low spot at the left bay entrance. Using a 4 ft. level at the entrance extending onto the garage concrete slab and tape measure the low spot is approximately 1⁄4” over 4 ft. I am able to verify the entrance to the left bay of the garage is higher than the garage slab. See P (16) thru P (19). Per ROC Workmanship Standards ponding or standing water on garages, patios, stoops, carports, walks and driveway concrete surfaces water should drain. Standing water exceeding 3/32” is unacceptable. The respondent shall correct the garage floor at the left bay where water ponds up to 1⁄4” by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 6: Drywall patched but not painted where there were multiple leaks in garage

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the garage I observed a drywall repair that has not been painted. The respondent acknowledged a leak was previously identified, has been repaired and the repair will be painted. See P (20). The respondent shall complete the drywall repair in the garage by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 8: Some walls throughout house were not smoothed where wall meets floor

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me numerous areas throughout the interior of the home where the drywall finish is not smooth where the walls meet the floor. Both parties acknowledged there are to be no baseboards installed throughout the interior of the home. See P (22) thru P (26) and P (41). The respondent shall correct the walls throughout the interior of the home where the smooth drywall finish does not continue to the floor by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 10: Many handles and pulls throughout are loose

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me at least 1 door knob and a freezer door handle that is loose. See P (28) thru P (30). The respondent acknowledged the freezer door handle has not been secured since the initial installation but the door handles have been secured on at least 2 occasions. Per ROC Workmanship Standards the contractor should repair, adjust or replace operating parts as required within the first year. The respondent shall secure the freezer door handle that is loose by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 11: Final coat of paint throughout house never completed

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed areas throughout the home where the final coat of paint has not been completed. See P (22) thru P (26), P (41) and P (42. The respondent shall complete the final coat of paint throughout the home by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 12: Some cracks in ceiling where lights were installed, etc

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify there is a hairline crack in the drywall ceiling where a light fixture is installed. See P (31) thru P (34). Per ROC Workmanship Standards contractor should repair nail pops, seam lines and other hairline cracks 1 time within the first year of occupancy. The respondent shall correct the hairline crack in the drywall ceiling where a light fixture is installed by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 13: Some walls not straight

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where there are some walls throughout the interior of the home that are not straight or square at the end. See P (36) thru P (43). Per ROC Workmanship Standards walls should be straight within 1⁄4”. The respondent shall correct the walls throughout the interior that are not straight within 1⁄4” by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 14: There should not be a pocket in ceiling to right of great room fireplace, fill it in

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a window shade pocket in the great room ceiling on the right side of the fireplace. See P (35). The respondent acknowledged the pocket was to be filled in. The respondent shall fill in the pocket in the ceiling to the right of great room fireplace as agreed upon by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 16: Tile not finished near cabinet toe kicks in master bath and under most sinks

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where the tile is not finished near the cabinet toe kicks in the master bath. See P (44) and P (45). The respondent shall complete the tile installation throughout by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 17: Shower shelves in master bath fell down and were damaged

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me the location where glass shelves where installed in the master bathroom and 2 glass shelves that have fallen, See P (46) and P (47). The respondent shall correct the glass shelves that have fallen and replace any that were damaged by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 18: Wood flooring has gaps between boards

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me glue down engineered hardwood flooring at various areas throughout the home. The gaps between the wood flooring in the field of various rooms appears to be uniform and the joints are tight. See P (49) thru P (51). The wood flooring installed at 1 of the stairways has an oversized gap at the handrail post and a gap between the boards near the wall. See P (48). On the stairway there are gaps between the stair treads and the risers. See P (52) thru P (54) and P (58). The respondent shall correct the gap around the stair handrail cut out, gaps at the wall and on the stair tread to risers throughout by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 19: Wood flooring at entryway does not lay flat

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify the glue down engineered wood flooring at the entry does not lay flat. See P (55). The respondent shall correct the wood flooring at the entry that does not lay flat by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 22: Hole cut in tile in wrong place for towel warmer in casita bath, tile needs to be replaced

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged there’s a hole cut in the tiled wall for a J-Box at the Casita bath towel warmer bar that is on the wrong side. It appears the J-Box other end of the towel warmer bar is at the correct location. Both parties acknowledged the towel warmer bar operates at intended. See P (61). The respondent shall correct the hole cut at the wrong location for the towel warmer bar J-Box by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 23: Some stairs are loose

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify some of the stair treads flex, squeak and feel loose when walking on the stairs. See P (52) thru P (54). The respondent stated the stair treads are glued and nailed. The respondent shall correct the loose stair treads that flex when walking on them by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 24: Flooring water damaged at casita entrance by loose door, needs to be replaced

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged there was a water leak at the Casita door that damaged the engineered hardwood flooring. See P (62) and P (63). The respondent shall correct the water damage hardwood flooring at the Casita entrance 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 26: Should not have 3 different keys, house should be keyed with 1

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged there are 3 keys for the exterior doors. Industry standard is to have all exterior door locks keyed be the same. The respondent shall ensure all exterior door locks are keyed the same.

Addendum Complaint Item 3: Driveway sunken at curve near garage entrance

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the driveway near the garage entrance I observed an area along the driveway edge that has shifted and settled. See P (70) and P (71). Per ROC Workmanship Standards edge restraints should remain stationary. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 4: Rough unfinished concrete on either side of front entry stairs should be finished with metal trim to match planters

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation at both sides of the front entry stairs the complainant showed me rough unfinished concrete. The concrete finish is unsightly. See P (72) and P (73). Per ROC Workmanship Standards there is no acceptable tolerance for improper, inadequate or unsightly finishing. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 7: Water damage around window in bedroom #2, window must not be sealed properly

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in bedroom #2 I observed water damage around the window. See P (76). The respondent shall ensure the window does not leak and correct the damaged caused by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 8: Erosion on right window in interior office

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the office of the home I observed what appears to be water damage at the right window. See P (77). The respondent shall ensure the window does not leak and correct the damaged caused by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 9: Patio not level in outdoor kitchen, tiles move when walked on

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation at the outdoor kitchen patio I observed pavers that are loose and have settled. The respondent acknowledged the pavers have settled and are installed over a tank that is associated with the pool. See P (78) and P (79). The respondent shall correct the pavers that are loose and have settled by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 10: Parts of foundation at garage are chipped and should be filled and painted to match home

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent explained that when installing framing members the edge of the concrete blew out and agreed there are parts of foundation at the garage that are chipped and should be filled and painted to match home. See P (98). The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 13: Wood plank missing in ceiling at eave in rear of home

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the rear of the home I observed a missing T & G wood plank at the eave with exposed OSB plywood. See P (83). The respondent stated that a piece of metal will be installed to prevent water intrusion. The respondent shall ensure the exposed OSB plywood is covered to prevent deterioration by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 16: Raw concrete showing on either side of front entrance where cladding stops, should be covered in stucco

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation on either side of front entrance window where the cladding stops I observed raw concrete between the stacked stone and the window frame that appears to be unfinished. See P (74), P (75) and P (101). The respondent shall correct the raw concrete between the stacked stone and the front window frame that appears to be unfinished by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 17: There is a gap with exposed construction material showing at eave in rear of home

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the exterior rear of the home below the eave I observed exposed OSB at the base of a column. See P (85). The respondent shall correct the gap with exposed OSB at the base of a column by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 20: Rusty bolts should be painted on roof deck above left garage door

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged there are 3 rusty bolts on the roof deck above the garage door and agreed the bolts will be painted. See P (86). The respondent shall ensure the rusty bolts are corrected by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 21: Hole in wall needs to be fixed on west side of barbecue area

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a hole in the wall on the west side of the barbecue area. The respondent stated the wire running through the wall is a communication wire for the TV on the opposite side of the wall. See P (87). The respondent shall correct the hole in the wall by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 22: Broken tile on roof deck parapet wall

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged the broken tile on the roof deck, is not sure how is was broken and agreed to replace the tile.

Addendum Complaint Item 26: Excess masonry showing under pavers around pool spillover needs to be cleaned off

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed excess mortar showing under the pavers around the pool spill over. See P (93) and P (94). The respondent shall corrected the excess mortar showing under the pavers around the pool spill over by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 28: Cracks in wood floor planks in office off garage, need to be replaced

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed wood floor planks in the office off the garage that have cracks. See P (88) thru P (92). It appears the wood floor planks were installed with the cracks. The respondent shall correct the cracked wood floor planks throughout the office off the garage by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 35: Glue residue on built-in drawer cabinets in dining room needs to be removed

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged there is glue residue on the built-in drawer cabinets in the dining room that cannot be removed and will have the affected cabinet components refinished. The respondent shall ensure the glue residue is removed by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 41: Many cabinets need adjustments as they don't close flush

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the kitchen of the home the complainant showed me soft close cabinet drawers that do not close flush. See P (102) thru P (105). The respondent acknowledged the drawers were adjusted by the cabinet subcontractor after installation but final adjustments have not been completed. Per ROC Workmanship Standards cabinet doors, drawers and other operating parts should function properly. Contractor should repair adjust or replace operating parts as required within the first year.

Addendum Complaint Item 43: Concrete damage at garage stem wall

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where there is concrete damage at the garage stem wall. See P (80) and P (81). Per ROC Workmanship Standards chipped or broken concrete corners are unacceptable. The respondent shall correct the concrete damage to the garage stem wall by appropriate means.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Fagerburg of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 27, 2025.

On May 30, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg issued an Amended Written Directive specific to Complaint items 9, 15, and 21. Respondent was required to notify Investigator Fagerburg of its compliance with the amended directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on June 16, 2025.

On June 24, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for July 11, 2025. During the inspection, Compliance Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24, and Addendum Items 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 21, 28, and 43 were deemed not completed.

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

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on September 5, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted as to the workmanship charge that most of the items were never disputed and Respondent had agreed to complete them. However, Respondent had not been paid. There were approximately $1,000,000.00 worth of changes made to the project, the design review took a year, and due to the project starting during COVID, costs increased. Regarding the Written Directive compliance charge, Respondent asserted that some of the items had longer lead times and it was thought that deadline was a response date, not the date for required completion.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On September 15, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for October 22, 2025.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on October 22, 2025.

Investigator Fagerburg testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, Investigator Fagerburg noted that a pre-hearing inspection had been performed on October 21, 2025. Though Respondent was present at all prior inspections, Respondent was not present at the pre-hearing inspection. Due to the inspection being completed only the day prior to the hearing, Investigator Fagerburg had not submitted notes or photos. However, he did testify as to his findings as follows:

Complaint Item 2 – This looked a lot better. Concrete repairs will always show.

Complaint Item 3 – Not completed. There were still some rusty bolts.

Complaint Item 6 – Multiple repairs noted; however, not finished.

Complaint Item 8 – Repair attempts were evident but not finished.

Complaint Item 11 – Multiple repairs noted; however no finish paint.

Complaint Item 14 – No changes noted from compliance inspection.

Complaint Item 16 – No changes noted from compliance inspection.

Complaint Item 18 – No attempts to repair evident.

Complaint Item 19 – Repair made; however, gaps remain excessively noticeable.

Complaint Item 21 – Not completed. Puncture marks on the floor remain.

Complaint Item 24 – No attempts to repair evident.

Addendum Complaint Item 7 – Repair made; however, window is still not sealed.

Addendum Complaint Item 9 – Not corrected. Wobbly paver remains.

Addendum Complaint Item 13 – Repair made; however stain color not a close match.

Mrs. Winterhalter testified in support of Investigator Fagerburg’s testimony and the record, as well as Complainant’s admitted exhibits 1-7. Mrs. Winterhalter also clarified that Complainant received a secondary bank loan for the “overages.” This loan required that Complainant allot specific amounts to specific areas where overages were expected (e.g. pool, bathroom, etc.). Mr. Winterhalter testified that there was leaking in the garage ceiling and foundation.

Mr. Pickett testified that Respondent never stated it would not complete the project or a punch list. Mr. Pickett further testified that the issue was financial. Specifically, construction started in November 2021, during COVID and was expected to take 27-36 months. However, due to COVID and decision-making difficulties encountered, the project took longer. The last payment Respondent received was a draw in April 2024. Since that time, Respondent was self-funding the project. Work slowed down because Respondent was unable to hire subcontractors to perform the work without payment so Respondent was performing the work. Regarding the Complaint items, Respondent testified that Complainant had been living in the house for a year and while the house had received three coats of paint already, Respondent had not done the final corner-to-corner paint because not all the patches had been finished.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 22, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 315985 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and two resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. 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.”

The preponderance of the evidence established that because Complaint items were verified at the jobsite inspection, Respondent failed to perform all 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).

The preponderance of the evidence established that because Complaint items remained uncorrected at the Compliance inspection and again at the pre-hearing inspection, Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

The undersigned Administrative Law Judges acknowledges Respondent’s continued attempts to correct all Complaint items and Respondent’s argument that the barrier is a financial dispute. However, the Office of Administrative Hearings is not the proper forum to hear such disputes, rather Respondent may have a remedy for what it seeks in a judicial forum.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for one business day Respondent’s License No. 315985.

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, November 20, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

David Fagerburg, Investigator

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Pickett Hagen Builders Inc,

[email redacted]

Kimberly Winterhalter,

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff