ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-02290-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-28
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Melissa Brewer,
COMPLAINANT
v.
K&E Construction LLC,
License No. ROC 345188,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-02290-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 22, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Melissa Brewer
Brian Brewer
Respondent: Ryan Bailey, Esq.
Betsy Carruth
Registrar of Contractors: Doug Barrett, 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, 2, 4, and 6.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
K&E Construction LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 345188 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on May 24, 2023.
On or about January 3, 2024, Melissa and Brian Brewer (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a complete home remodel.
On or about March 10, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Doug Barrett, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on March 18, 2025, scheduling the inspection for April 7, 2025.
Investigator Barrett conducted the jobsite inspection on April 7, 2025. Following the inspection, Investigator Barrett issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on April 10, 2025, that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Patio crooked no weep screed or footers.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the patio cover off the kitchen slider in the back yard. There was no visible weep screed and the respondent verified one was not installed. I was also unable to see if a footer was installed and its size. The cover posts (2) were not straight and each side leaned about 7/8". The respondent stated a permit was not pulled and plans were not used for the construction of the cover. Contractor should correct the cover by appropriate means per the local building official.
Complaint Item: 2 - Wall insulation missing.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. This item refers to the wall between the pool bathroom and the master bedroom. The complainant cut a hole in the drywall during the inspection and I confirmed no insulation was present. The contract calls for insulation in this area and throughout the home. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 5 - Window improperly installed.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the window in the master bathroom water closet and it was missing parts. The new parts were on site but not installed. Contractor should correct the window by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 6 - Grout crumbling.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the grout in the master bathroom shower floor and it was not hard to standards. It was tested with a Mohs' Hardness Tester #2 and the grout scratched. Contractor should correct by appropriate means. Two other locations pointed out by the complainant were within standards; the master shower walls and the kitchen floor by the refrigerator. No correction required for these areas.
Complaint Item: 7 - Cabinetry incomplete.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the icemaker and it was not installed securely and had a large gap on the side. I observed the toe kick not installed on the dishwasher. This item is not in the plans and it is unknown if a toe kick is required. Contractor should correct the ice machine by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 8 - Wavy drywall. Cracks in drywall.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed "wavy" drywall where the wall meets the ceiling in several locations, along with cracks, as pointed out by the complainant. In the living room to the right of the TV at the ceiling is wavy. The entire wall directly across from the TV wall at the ceiling is wavy. The living room ceiling has visible tape joints throughout and a crack by the ceiling fan. There is a crack at the ceiling corner to the left of the refrigerator. There is a crack in the ceiling in the garage hall by the center can light. The ceiling is wavy at the arch from the garage hall to the entry. From inside the office looking out, the top right corner of the door frame has crooked drywall. In bedroom three there are cracks in the drywall at the bottom right where the window size was framed down. Contractor should correct by appropriate means
Complaint Item: 10 - Ceiling fan that sounds like it's loose.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the ceiling fan in bedroom 2 and it was loud and shaking when turned on. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 11 - Kitchen countertop has chips in it.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed a chip at the bottom of the kitchen island on the slider side. I observed a second chip on the top of the counter south west of the kitchen sink. The complainant provided a text reporting the damage to the respondent the day after it was installed. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 12 - Spray foam insulation missing in spots and sprayed on furnace exhaust.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed a photo from the complainant with a section at the north wall in the attic missing foam insulation with just exposed wood. I observed a photo from the complainant of the furnace vent pipe with spray foam on it. The manufacturer of the spray foam states the spray foam is a combustible material and should have a gap of at least three inches from any chimneys, flues, steam pipes, recessed lighting or heat emitting devices. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Barrett of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 2, 2025.
Investigator Barrett testified that a request for an extension of the Written Directive compliance deadline was granted and the deadline was extended to May 16, 2025.
On May 13, 2025, Investigator Barrett issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for May 22, 2025. During the inspection, Complaint items 1, 5, 8, 11, and 12 were deemed not completed.
On May 27, 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 June 11, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted the Complaint items were either damaged after installation, worked on by third parties, and/or Respondent was not provided reasonable time to complete the necessary repairs. Specifically, Respondent was granted a second deadline extension to comply with the Written Directive, which was subsequently rescinded. Also, Complainant hired both a handyman and a contractor who completed work around the kitchen countertop at issue and installed insulation over the garage, respectively. Therefore, Respondent could not be held responsible for those items.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On July 23, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for September 4, 2025.
At the time of the scheduled hearing, as a preliminary matter it was noted that although the Citation charged Respondent with violations of both A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3) and (A)(22), the Notice of Hearing included A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) as the only matter at issue, omitting A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). Investigator Barrett stated this was in error, and the parties did not agree to waive notice. Therefore, the hearing was continued pending submission of an Amended Notice of Hearing.
An Amended Notice of Hearing was filed on September 5, 2025, and an Order was issued granting a continuance of the hearing to October 22, 2025.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on October 22, 2025.
Investigator Barrett testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, Investigator Barrett noted that corrections were attempted for Complaint items 1, 5, 8, and 11, but were not completed. On questioning, Investigator Barrett stated that all factors are considered when determining whether a time extension is warranted. In this case, he did not grant a second deadline extension because one had already been granted providing Respondent sufficient time to complete the directive. Additionally, Respondent told Investigator Barrett that the attic had been completed when in fact it had not even been started.
Complainant testified in support of the Written Directive. Specifically, Complainant testified that two patios were included on the first two bids provided by Respondent. However, the architect mistakenly left the second patio off the plans when they were submitted to the city for approval. Complainant further testified that, on learning this, she had the architect add the second patio to the plans; however, Respondent advised Complainant to not resubmit the plans to the city for approval because it would add another month to the project. Instead, Respondent planned to build the second patio after inspections were completed. Respondent did, in fact, build both patios. Additionally, Complainant testified that, prior to the contract with Respondent, she hired a different contractor to spray foam insulation in the garage to be used as storage. This area is separate from the area at issue in the Complaint.
Complainant testified that Respondent did not make any corrective action for the first 10 days of the compliance period. Complainant clarified that the Written Directive was issued on April 10, 2025, and the first day corrective action was performed was April 23, 2025.
Respondent’s representative elected not to testify at the hearing in defense of the license.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 22, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 345188 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no 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 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 Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22), specifically regarding Compliance Items [].
“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license . . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for three business days Respondent’s License No. 345188.
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).
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 28, 2025.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Ryan D. Bailey, Esq.
Stone Canyon Law PLC
[email redacted]
Doug Barrett, Investigator
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Melissa Brewer
[email redacted]
K&E Construction LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff