ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-02886-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Debbie Nierman,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

J&M CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN LLC,

License No. ROC 344487,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-02886-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 6, 2025

APPEARANCES: Debbie Nierman and James Murphy appeared representing Complainant. Brenda Hutchison and Anthony Jackowiak appeared representing Respondent. Assistant Chief Investigator Daniel Edwards appeared from the Registrar.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant submitted eight documents. _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

J&M CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 344487, a KB-2 Dual Building, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in April 2023.

In August 2024, Debbie Nierman (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent for a home remodel project at the contracted price of $124,225.80.

On March 21, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work on the home remodel project. The Complaint indicated that work began on September 2, 2024, and stopped on November 27, 2024. The Complainant further indicated that $138,330.57 had been paid to Respondent.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Robert Di Alto, who scheduled a jobsite inspection for the project.

At a scheduled April 22, 2025 jobsite inspection, no person from Respondent arrived to participate in the jobsite inspection.

On or about April 25, 2025, the Registrar received an Amended Complaint.

At a further scheduled May 15, 2025 jobsite inspection, no person from Respondent arrived to participate in the jobsite inspection.

At the jobsite inspections, Investigator Di Alto reviewed the Complainant and Amended Complaint items with Complainant and took multiple photographs to document the unfinished and incomplete conditions of the project.

On May 28, 2025, Investigator Di Alto issued a Written Directive to Respondent, which 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 Thursday, July 3rd, 2025.

..................

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 2 - Hayden’s Upstairs Bedroom; installing missing baseboard corner piece to the left of window

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 3 - Upstairs Hallway and Staircase; Clean HVAC return vents below the blower which had black overspray paint – the overspray black paint and overspray wall paint still on return vent.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 4 - Primary Bathroom; Baseboards and the door in the toilet need additional touchup because the last touchup attempted the individual used two different paint finishes

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 5 - Primary Bathroom; Clean paint off tile floor in toilet

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 7 - Primary Bedroom; Remove black paint from the new carpet outside of closet

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 8 - Primary Bedroom; Wall is cracked above the new closet door trim – repair and repaint both inside and outside of the closet

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 9 - Primary Bedroom; A few carpet holes in closet

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 10 - Main home entranceway; the door transition into the laundry room is very squeaky

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 11 - Main home entranceway; Clean Front Door and the screen (white overspray on door handles)

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 12- Main home entranceway; Sloppy installation of a light tan calking on front doorstep threshold instead of installing a threshold plate as seen below

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 13 - Main home entranceway; Touch up wall paint around archway to the hallway in front of the bathroom and bedroom

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 14 - Main home entranceway; clean wall paint overspray on flooring

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 15 - Laundry Room; Repaint the baseboards all the same black semi-gloss finish (currently multiple finishes)

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 18 - Laundry Room; when removing the window – did not finish drywall repair and paint but instead just covered up with the washed and dryer to hide the incomplete job.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 23 - Kitchen; When the glass panels in the upper black cabinets were installed, adhesive was spilled on the face of the glass. This adhesive has created smudges on the glass that I have been unable to remove after cleaning multiple times.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 25 - Kitchen; Workmanship on the $2375 pantry was disappointing. The top-drawer shelf has pulled off the wall. Bottom shelf does not slide easily. You did not install soft closing slides as billed on Change Order Invoice 166. None of the shelves will open unless the panty door is fully extended open.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The lowest pullout tray is nonfunctional. There are several shelves that do not slide easily and appear to bind. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 26 - Kitchen; Completion of the installation of the 9-foot slider kitchen door – Milgard rep said door was not installed correctly so there is a bow in the door preventing it from sealing and preventing the screens from working. The rep has ordered new screens – a smaller size - potentially the smaller size screen will accommodate the bow in the frame.Milgard is scheduled to return in January to see if this will work. If this does not work the door will need to be removed and reframed correctly.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The reveals are excessive at right and left active panel’s vs right and left fixed panels. This is an indication that the doors were not installed plumb and squared. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 27 - Kitchen; Repair LVP flooring in front of the stove top/wine fridge and in front of the pantry where the subflooring was not filled and leveled prior to installation (large air pockets). Your second attempt at repairing the flooring by injecting an expanding adhesive has made the area worse so now there is both a hump and a sway in the flooring. Some of the adhesive was spilled on the flooring staining the LVP Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is a hump at the described location in excess of 1/8”. I also noted excessive movement at the sliding door and slight joint separation to the right of the sliding door. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Not Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 28 - Kitchen; Clean up the calking at base of wine fridge – the light tan you chose does not match the coloring of the floor

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 29 - Kitchen; The touch up ceiling paint used along the exterior wall above brick backsplash was not the same color or finish as the remaining ceiling paint so there is noticeable stripe in the middle of the kitchen ceiling.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 30 - Kitchen; Touch up ceiling paint above refrigerator/microwave and upper cabinets

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 32 - Kitchen; Ceiling fire sprinkler white head trim piece missing in front of slider door

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 33 - Family Room Next to Kitchen; Storage cabinets in TV cavity family room were not installed correctly therefore the middle left cabinet door cannot be opened unless the far-left cabinet door is also opened. There were no shelves installed in any of the cabinets.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The cabinet doors need adjustment as they collide when opening. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 34 - Family Room Next to Kitchen; the window to the left of the fireplace needs to be cleaned and the paint removed from the window glass and frame

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 35 - Family Room Next to Kitchen; the window to the right of the slider door needs to have the paint splashes cleaned off the frame.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means, where these conditions exist.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 36 - Family Room Next to Kitchen; Clean windows and screens both inside and outside dust, dry wall texture, and overspray paint from construction.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means, where these conditions exist.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 37 - Family Room Next to Kitchen; Touch up ceiling paint around the ceiling fan cap

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Multiple other items were designated by Investigator Di Alto as “Items Not Requiring Correction.”

After Complainant notified Investigator Di Alto that corrective work had not been completed, he forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

On July 10, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of the applicable statutes:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8) Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.

Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) 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.

Charge :4 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar.

At the November 6, 2025 hearing, Chief Investigator Edwards testified regarding the background of the Complaint and the findings contained in Investigator Di Alto’s Jobsite Inspection Notes and the Written Directive. The photographs taken at the Jobsite Inspection(s) depicted deficiencies in Respondent’s work at the time of the jobsite inspection.

Chief Investigator Edwards noted that neither the jobsite notes nor the Directive discussed any jurisdictional code issues.

At hearing, Complainant testified that, after the jobsite inspections and the issuance of the Directive, they had not heard from Respondent. Complainant testified that they agree with the items in the Directive.

Complainant noted that they had tried to mediate the matter, but the mediation had not been successful.

Complainant further testified that both the Complaint and Amended Complaint list carpet issues, and that the April 22, 2025 jobsite pictures clearly depict issues with the carpet and some carpet seams. Complainant’s two photographs, taken on April 22, 2025, depict carpet seam issues.

Complaint Item #9 lists carpet hole issues in the primary bedroom.

Respondent testified that Complainant had removed Respondent from the job in December of 2024. Respondent indicated that Tony could not be at the jobsite inspections due to his trucking work on the road and that Tony had communicated with the Investigator in regard to that. Respondent also indicated that, during the 15 days allowed for corrective work, Tony had also been out of town for work.

Respondent acknowledged that the Directive was appropriate but indicated it would disagree with any estimate obtained to “replace” the flooring. Further, Respondent indicated that the carpet in the “upstairs” only needed a repair and also opined that the carpet installation was appropriate which was the reason why a “carpet seam” issue had not appeared in the Directive.

Respondent explained that its project manager had not managed the project well and that, it turned out, the carpet had been measured incorrectly. Respondent indicated that, had they been allowed to come back to the project, they would have been able to finish the work and would have utilized different subcontractors. Respondent indicated that there were some change orders and that monies are still owed to Respondent on the project.

Since the date of the November 6, 2025 hearing, Complainant has not notified the Tribunal that the parties were able to informally resolve the matter.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC License record on November 26, 2025. Respondent’s ROC License record reflects that this Complaint is the only open ROC complaint.

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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards.

The Directive mandated correction multiple items. An appropriate period of time was given for the corrections and there is no evidence that Respondent requested an extension of the time period; Respondent did not perform any corrective work to complete the Directive items.

The evidence established that Respondent’s work on this project was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. 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).

The evidence further established that Respondent failed to complete the directed corrective work during the period of the Written Directive and its multiple extensions. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar, without valid justification, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Neither party addressed the specifics of the contract amount, any or all change order amounts, or any monies either invoiced or remaining to have been paid to Respondent. While the hearing record demonstrates that Respondent did not complete the project, the evidence did not sufficiently establish the amount for which the project would have been completed. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish a violation by Respondent of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(8).

Finally, the hearing record failed to indicate any Investigator-determined item involving jurisdictional building codes. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish a violation by Respondent of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License Number 344487 for a period of five (5) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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 (30) 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 26, 2025.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Debbie Nierman

[email redacted]

J&M CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff