ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02770-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-08-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Sterling Anderson,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

DDS Renovations LLC

License No. ROC 339743,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-02770-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 20, 2025 at 1:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Sterling Anderson on his own behalf. Torsten Coulson on behalf of Respondent DDS Renovations, LLC with witness Josh Hinks. Investigator Jim Dimond on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Respondent Exhibit A and B.

FINDINGS OF FACT

DDS Renovations, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 339743 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

Sterling Anderson (“Complainant”) purchased a home in Prescott, Arizona around June 2023. The home had the original roof from 1993. Prior to the purchase, an inspection was performed and contingent upon the sale of the home, Complainant asked that the roof be redone.

On or about July 11, 2023, the home seller agreed and $14,000.00 was released to Respondent to replace the roof. Respondent completed the roof on July 14, 2023.

Approximately two weeks after the completion of the roof, a monsoon came through Prescott and Complainant discovered that there was a roof leak. After about one year of Respondent attempting repairs, Complainant reached out to the Registrar.

On or about March 18, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jim Dimond. On April 21, 2025, Investigator Dimond set up a jobsite inspection and both parties participated.

On May 14, 2025, Investigator Dimond issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided 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 Wednesday, June 4, 2025.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 – Condensed - Purchased home from seller- Inspection showed deficient roof-Seller had new roof put on and it leaks

Investigator’s Observation: At the north side of the home there is an entrance to a sunroom.

The complainant pointed out that at the beam by the door there is water damage occurring and evidence of water intrusion. The complainant has rigged up a tub to catch the water.

The complainant relayed that the leak is slow and does not start right away. We went up on the roof and it appears corrective work has taken place.

A walk around the roof shows no indications of failure in the material and there are no obvious issues on the parapets. At the scuppers, they have been addressed with sealant and there are no obvious deficiencies visible.

The complainant expressed concerns at the area due north of the HVAC unit and believes the material to be improperly installed with the lap reversed.

There has been material added around the HVAC unit. The complainant indicated that the HVAC does not appear to be the source of the leak in his opinion. The respondent is to determine the cause of the leak and correct the condition including corollary damage.

Additionally, the respondent is to ensure that the material installed north of the HVAC is installed in a manner consistent with the manufacturer specifications.

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.

Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent did not come back out to the property prior to the deadline. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Dimond was notified that no corrective work had been performed.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Hearing Evidence

Investigator Dimond testified that per the Directive, Respondent was directed to determine where the water leak was coming from. Although corrective work took place prior to the Directive, Complainant’s roof still leaked in the sunroom area with noticeable drip stains in the wall. Investigator Dimond further testified that if the leak was determined to be because of the stucco there may not be a workmanship issue, however, that investigative work was not performed by Respondent after the Directive was issued.

Complainant testified that when he spoke to the prior homeowner, he was informed that the roof never leaked in the past. Complainant contended that the roof leaked only after Respondent replaced the roof. Complainant expressed that on June 13, 2025, Respondent reached out to him to see if they could come to the property, however, the Directive period had already expired.

Torsten Coulson, Manager on behalf of Respondent, testified that the roof replacement was built to manufacturer specifications. Mr. Coulson further testified that after Respondent was informed about the leak that they applied additional coating/sealant in multiple sections on the roof. Respondent believed this was a “pinhole leak” and they would need to cut through the drywall and run water hoses to determine the source of the leak. Mr. Coulson and Josh Hinks, Respondent Owner, stated that they sent an email to Complainant on May 21, 2025, to perform work and never received a response. Mr. Hinks admitted Respondents prior method to communicate with Complainant was via phone calls and text messages and not emails. Complainant testified that he never saw the May 21, 2025, email and rarely checked his email. Mr. Coulson testified that Respondent did not ask the Registrar for an extension to the Directive deadline.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 20, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 339743 was first issued on July 28, 2022, and was Active with no prior discipline.

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. A preponderance of the evidence means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards because the water leak was still present. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

In addition, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 339743 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), 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, August 27, 2025.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

DDS Renovations LLC

9299 W Olive Ave #113

Peoria, AZ 85345

[email redacted]

Sterling Anderson

2440 W Mesa Oak Court

Prescott, AZ 86305

[email redacted]

Jim Dimond

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff