ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-01232-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

John Chester Williams,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Freedom Construction & Design, LLC

License No. ROC 333418,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-01232-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 19, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant John Chester Williams appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Freedom Construction & Design, LLC was represented by Megan Schandle. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Daniel Otero appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Respondent’s Exhibits 1-21.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Freedom Construction & Design LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 333418 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about June 14, 2022, Complainant hired Respondent to construct a new home Williams, Arizona.

On or about February 3, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Daniel Otero. The jobsite inspection was performed on February 18, 2025.

Investigator Otero then issued a Written Directive on or about March 14, 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 Thursday, April 3, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: - Plan included front and rear porch

Investigator’s Observation: At this point there's a chance more likely than not there is an issue with the front covered porch not being installed on the house.

Although there have been many revisions obtained through the Coconino

County Building Department on this project, both structures remained on the plans throughout the revisions.

Contract states " New Home Construction Per Plans and Specifications Dated 8/8/22"

Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)

Complaint Item: - After 3 try’s FC finally had windows installed but they had to be cut into the metal building and they do not fit prop

Investigator’s Observation: properly. There is a gap between the windows and the building. We are concerned about future problems

Verified. At the time of the Inspection it was observed there were multiple windows that were not sealed properly. There appears to be inconsistencies in the trim/flashing around the windows, this could lead to water infiltration that could lead to damage in the structure as well as health risks. It was visually noticeable around the windows that were sealed and the windows that were not sealed. As evidence shows around the windows that are sealed there is a red tint of residue from the red cinder dust from the driveway that has adhered to the sealant. There are windows that are sealed from what it appears to be from someone standing on the ground as high as they could reach and what would need to be done from a ladder for the upper portion of the windows was not completed. Under the rear patio all of the windows and door was not sealed, although they are in a covered area, if a wind driven storm was to happen anything around the house is potentially exposed to the elements. The Respondent will need to correct this 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...

On April 10, 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); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about April 25, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about May 7, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on June 18, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and e-mail address of record. Further the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order setting the matter on Google Meet on June 4, 2025 and sent it to the parties’ email mail addresses of record.

After a continuance, the hearing was held on September 19, 2025.

At hearing, Investigator Otero testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Otero testified that the parties’ contract specified that the house would be built according to the August 8, 2022 plans, which included two porches but only one was constructed.

As to the windows, Investigator Otero testified that while there were no active leaks or evidence of past leaks, he was concerned that the silicone around some of the windows was either incomplete, or had worn away.

Mr. Williams testified that he never saw the second set of plans which did not show the second porch and it was his understanding that there would be two porches constructed.

Further, Mr. Williams testified that the Certificate of Occupancy was issued and the house passed all inspections by the city of Williams.

Mr. Williams also testified that while he consented to the final draw to be paid, he did so under duress.

Eli Slover testified first for Respondent. Mr. Slover testified that he reviewed the plans, and while the draftsman plans contained two porches the structural plans did not. However, Mr. Slover testified that the draftsman plans clearly incorporated and referenced the structural plans, therefore the structural plans also control. Further, he testified that the Certificate of Occupancy would not have been issued if there was significant work remaining.

Melissa Obermeyer was Respondent’s owner. She testified that while the second porch was originally contemplated, there were changes to the plan based upon budgetary concerns and thus the structural plans were used. It was these structural plans which was what the contract was based upon.

Ms. Obermeyer testified that too that the house would not have passed all inspections (including from the bank), and been granted a Certificate of Occupancy if there was to be a second porch required.

Further, Ms. Obermeyer testified that throughout various email conversations, concerns about the second porch were never raised, and that ultimately Complainant consented to the final draw.

As to the windows, Ms. Obermeyer testified that they were installed according the manufacturers specifications, and was unaware of any current problems regarding the same.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 7, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 333418 was first issued on May 19, 2021, was inactive as of April 19, 2025. The License records also reflected that there were two open cases, one of which included the present case, and two “Resolved/settled cases”.

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 not a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a). While there was clearly a discrepancy between the draftsman plans and the structural plans, Complainant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the structural plans did not control. Further, there was no dispute that a Certificate of Occupancy was issued and that a final inspection was conducted by the bank to approve the loan. These simply would not have occurred and passed if the draftsman plans were controlling, as there was no front porch installed as per the plans.

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 there was clearly was an issue with the sealing and caulking as there were gaps between the windows and the building demonstrated from pictures from the jobsite inspection. Further, Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action regarding the caulking, following the 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. 333418 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $75.00 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, October 7, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Megan N. Schandle, Esq.

LANG THAL KING & HANSON PC

[email redacted]

John Chester Williams

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff