ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-02762-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-20
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Adrienne Mutterperl,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Aksco Construction Inc
License No. ROC 108613,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-00623-CHC-ROC
2025A-02762-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 7, 2025 and October 9, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Dennis Rosen, Esq.
Adrienne and Matthew Mutterperl
Travis Dillard
Respondent: Nicolas A. Misuraca, Esq.
Agnes and Lee Seidler
Registrar of Contractors: David Cooke, 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 1-153; Respondent’s Exhibits A-TT.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Aksco Construction, Inc. (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 108613 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on August 2, 1995.
On or about August 24, 2024, Adrienne and Matthew Mutterperl (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a home remodel.
On or about January 17, 2025, Complainant filed with the Registrar Complaint No. 2025-00623 claiming poor work. The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Cooke. On January 21, 2025, Investigator Cooke sent a Jobsite Inspection Notice to the parties scheduling an inspection for February 25, 2025, which was re-scheduled to and performed on March 7, 2025.
Following the inspection, Investigator Cooke issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on March 11, 2025 that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - washing machine not hooked up to drain properly
Investigator’s Observation: The washing machines water supply leaks when used. The respondent spoke to the fact that the washing machine supply line was a favor (not for compensation). After review of the contract, it was found that the supply line for the washing machine was, in fact, charged for. Therefore the respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 2 - There appears to be a leak through the wall of master shower
Investigator’s Observation: The complainant believes there is a leak in the back, right corner of the shower. The opposing wall, in the hallway, displays evidence of moisture in the corner after shower is used. The complainant was not asked to replicate this leak in an attempt to mitigate any more damage. The complainant had a photo from the last time the shower was used which displayed saturated grout lines from under the baseboard. The evidence of that moisture was apparent in the grout without being wet. The respondent will need to identify the location of the leak and repair by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 4 - There is quite a large crack in the grout where the wall and niche floor tile meet
Investigator’s Observation: An absence of grout as well as multiple areas of cracking grout was apparent at the L-trim used at the base of the niche. Cracks of 1/16” or more at joints or with other dissimilar materials such as bath tubs shall be corrected by the contractor once within the first year. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 5 - The light over one of the vanity mirrors is not centered
Investigator’s Observation: The light fixture above the (facing) left mirror is not centered on the mirror or sink. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 6 - The drywall next to the vanity mirror is wavy/uneven
Investigator’s Observation: The wall to the (facing) left of the vanity was visually not flat. The wall exhibited obvious waves that extended from the vanity to the joining wall. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 7 - The floor tile is not flush or straight, especially in front of the toilet
Investigator’s Observation: In the master bathroom the floor tile was shown to have inconsistent grout, inconsistent cuts near the edges, and multiple tiles that had lippage that exceeds industry standards. In several areas the grout and grout lines were discolored and larger than the rest of the floor. The cuts that were made along the edges of the bathroom were inconsistent creating a variant grout line. Specifically, in front of the toilet, multiple tiles were observed to be raised. These tiles exceed the industry standards tolerance. The respondent will need to correct these items by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 8 - The light receptacle to the left of the vanity is crooked.
Investigator’s Observation: The receptacle placed on the (facing) left of the vanity was installed crooked. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 9 - master hallway- the light switch is crooked
Investigator’s Observation: The light switch placed in the master hallway was installed crooked. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 10 - master hallway- The baseboard does not match the original
Investigator’s Observation: The baseboard installed in the master hallway did not match the original baseboard. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 11 - Lvng rm- there is a larger gap of drywall around the can lights than there should be
Investigator’s Observation: Two can lights were observed in the living room that had been poorly patched. The patches displayed trowel marks that encompassed about half the light opening. One of the can lights had an approximate 1/4" gap around the trim. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 12 - lvng rm- the outlet between the kitchen and the sofa sparks when we plug something in
Investigator’s Observation: The complainant explained that the outlet sparked when in use. The complainant was not asked to replicate this issue in an attempt to mitigate any further damage. The outlet face had evidence of scorch marks. A third party electrician was hired by the complainant. The electrician hired, made remarks regarding ungrounded circuits. The respondent will need to locate the cause of this issue and correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 13 - Sun rm- The outlets in this room only work if both switches are turned on
Investigator’s Observation: The outlet in the sunroom was only active if both switches were in the ON position. This is not the intended function for this outlet to be used. The respondent will need to locate the cause and correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 14 - guest rm- The baseboard replacement does not match the original
Investigator’s Observation: The baseboard installed in the guest room did not match the original baseboard. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 15 - guest rm- the drywall above the door trip inside the closet is not finished properly
Investigator’s Observation: The guest closet displayed multiple issues with the drywall finish. Above the door frame has areas of cracked drywall plaster, exposed gaps above the trim and paint runs. The bottom left corner, above the baseboard, has a gap in the drywall plaster. The door frame has an exposed screw head in the upper left corner. The respondent will need to correct these issues by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 16 - guest bth- there is broken tile by the edge of the tub and other tiles are cracked/chipped
Investigator’s Observation: A broken tile was pointed out to the (facing) left of the niche. Multiple cracked or chipped tiles were evident throughout the shower. The respondent will need to correct these tiles by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 17 - guest bth- The right wall of the tile is not straight
Investigator’s Observation: Facing the shower- The wall opposing the shower head was visually evident to be bowed. This bow has created an uneven grout line with the conjoining wall. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 18 - guest bth- there are unevenly place tiles we originally pointed out and we were told fixed that are still not fixed.
Investigator’s Observation: Throughout the shower there were multiple tiles that were set either out of level or unevenly placed. The unevenly placed tiles displayed lippage that exceeds industry standards. The respondent will need to correct these tiles by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 19 - guest bth- There is missing grout in the niche closest to the tub that we were told got filled in and was not
Investigator’s Observation: Grout is missing in the upper left hand corner of the niche. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 20 - Kitch- The grout used in the backsplash is mismatched in certain areas
Investigator’s Observation: Throughout the entire kitchen backsplash, discolored grout was evident. Multiple areas of the grout was darker than the rest of the grout. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 21 - kitch- The receptacle to the right of the sink is crooked and not grounded
Investigator’s Observation: The receptacle placed in the kitchen was installed crooked. A Report from a third party electrician, hired by the complainant, showed a photo of a GFCI Outlet tester displaying "open ground" in the outlet described in the complaint. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Cooke of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on March 31, 2025.
During the compliance period, on March 19, 2025, Complainant filed with the Registrar a second complaint (No. 2025-02762) claiming abandonment and poor work.
Investigator Cooke testified that Respondent requested an extension of the compliance deadline due to scheduling complications with the tiler. Investigator Cooke approved the request and extended the deadline to May 1, 2025.
Regarding Complaint No. 2025-02762, Investigator Cooke sent a Jobsite Inspection Notice to the parties on March 21, 2025, scheduling an inspection for April 10, 2025.
Following the jobsite inspection for Complaint No. 2025-02762, Investigator Cooke issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on April 23, 2025 that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Guest bathtub is set unevenly
Investigator’s Observation: At the jobsite inspection, the complainant spoke to the assumption that the mortar bed was not properly floated prior to setting the tub. A four foot level was used to identify the flatness of the tub bottom. A hump was identified in the center of the tub. Furthermore, upon standing inside the tub, the rear of the tub had a noticeable flex with very little pressure applied. The respondent shall identify and correct these items by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 2 - Outlet closest to right of kitchen sink is not flush with the wall
Investigator’s Observation: In the kitchen, a switch and outlet combo was shown to have an approximate 1/8" gap from the outlet cover to the tile backsplash, in the top left corner. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 3 - Living room can light flickers when light switch turned off
Investigator’s Observation: In the living room, the complainant showed a can light that continuously flickered despite the power supply being turned off. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
On April 23, 2025, Investigator Cooke issued an Amended Written Directive for Complaint No. 2025-00623 as to Complaint Item 1 only, which noted that based on new evidence presented at the April 10, 2025 jobsite inspection, Complaint Item 1 was not attributable to Respondent. Therefore it was not applicable and did not require correction.
On May 29, 2025, Investigator Cooke performed a Compliance Inspection for both Complaints. During the inspection, regarding Complaint No. 2025-00623, Compliance Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, were deemed not completed. Regarding Complaint No. 2025-02762, Compliance Items 1 and 2 were deemed not completed.
On June 3, 2025, and June 6, 2025, the Registrar issued Citations 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 Answers to both Citations on June 18, 2025. Respondent’s Answers asserted that after filing the initial complaint containing a single issue, but two weeks before the initial jobsite inspection, Complainant contacted Investigator Cooke to add 21 new issues. The new issues were all typical of construction projects and generally addressed at the end of a project through a punch list. Additionally, Complainant consistently obstructed Respondent’s efforts to address the alleged issues by demanding preapproval of corrective measures already required by the Registrar, denying access to subcontractors, refusing to cooperate with scheduling, and creating an unsafe work environment.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On July 1, 2025, the Registrar issued Notices of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearings for August 7 and 8, 2025.
On July 9, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate Hearings on Contested Case, which was granted on July 25, 2025 setting the consolidated hearing for August 7, 2025.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on August 7, 2025, and October 9, 2025.
Investigator Cooke testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and Citation.
Mrs. Mutterperl testified that at all times Complainant wanted Respondent to complete the contracted work. Mrs. Mutterperl was present for all repairs to provide safe and reasonable access and Mr. Dillard was present only for meetings between the parties, not the repairs.
Mr. Dillard testified that he became involved in the project on request of Complainant, in frustration, after the project was not completed on time, but had been paid in full. Mr. Dillard testified in support of the text and email communications submitted in evidence documenting the continued delays and scheduling issues with the project from November 2024 through May 2025. Mr. Dillard also testified that he and Complainant remained frustrated by the continued delays and unresponsiveness of Respondent, to attempts to have the project completed.
Mrs. Seidler testified in support of the text and email communications submitted in evidence. She testified that the project was initially delayed due to a custom-built vanity, ordered by Complainant, that would not fit through the door. On February 12, 2025, Mrs. and Mr. Seidler were at the project site with Complainant and Mr. Dillard and the plumber to address the washing machine complaint. While there, Complainant showed the Seidler’s the additional items that had been added to the Complaint. At this meeting, there was an altercation in which Mr. Dillard and Mr. Seidler raised a fist at one another. Mrs. Seidler called 9-1-1 to report the incident. Video and audio recordings of Mrs. Seidler calling 9-1-1 were submitted in evidence. Mrs. Seidler testified that thereafter she felt unsafe to go to the project site alone if Mr. Dillard would be present. Mrs. Seidler further testified that she was unable to comply with the deadline because she had to find a new tiler. She was also unaware that she could advise Investigator Cooke of the issues.
On questioning, Mrs. Seidler testified that the project was contracted to be completed by November 22, 2024 and was paid in full prior to the filed Complaint. She testified that she was unable to have corrections completed during the directive period due to two subcontractors refusing to return, requiring her to find new subcontractors. Specifically, she noted that because she was not allowed in Complainant’s house from February 12, 2025 to March 7, 2025, she could not find subcontractors to complete the work between February and May 2025.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 9, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 108613 was Active; and there were two open complaints (instant consolidated matters), 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.”
Extensive evidence was submitted by both parties, including text message and email communications, as well as video and audio recordings of the February 12, 2025 incident. All evidence, testimony, and arguments presented at hearing were reviewed and considered.
The undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds the text and email messages support Complainant’s testimony. Additionally, the video and audio recordings of the February 12, 2025 incident do not support the argument that Respondent so feared for her safety that complying with the Written Directive was prohibitive. During the emergency services call made by Mrs. Seidler, she was standing next to/in front of Mr. Dillard and Mr. Seidler can be heard encouraging Mrs. Seidler, multiple times, to leave the property.
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).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for two business days Respondent’s License No. 108613.
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
Aksco Construction Inc.
[email redacted]
Nicolas A. Misuraca, Esq.
Farhang & Medcoff PLLC
[email redacted]
Adrienne Mutterperl
[email redacted]
David Cooke, Investigator
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Dennis A. Rosen, Esq.
Law Offices of Dennis A. Rosen
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff