ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2025A-02957-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Leighann Johson,

COMPLAINANT

James Ivan Lambson

DBA: Lambson Construction,

License No. ROC 085424,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-02957-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 6, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Darryl Johnson, on behalf of Leighann Johnson

Respondent: James Lambson

Armando Perez, witness

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. Respondent Exhibit 37.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Procedural History

Lambson Construction (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 085424 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on February 7, 1990.

On or about December 20, 2023, Leighann Johnson (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a barbershop remodel.

On or about March 24, 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 April 4, 2025, scheduling the inspection for April 21, 2025.

Investigator Barrett conducted the jobsite inspection on April 21, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Barrett issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on April 22, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Hot water / cold water valves are incorrect on all stations.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the sinks at all stations and the following have the hot and cold reversed: In the front section the second sink on the right, and the first and second sink on the left. In the rear section the fifth sink on the right. Contractor should correct by 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.

Complaint Item: 2 - Walls are not textured correctly and has not been painted as discussed per contract.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed rough texture around an outlet high on the wall to the left rear of the front section. There is rough texture around the door frame on the inside of the study room. There are cracks/gouges in the blue paint at the rear hall left wall above and in-between the doors. There are spots in the office that have lack of paint coverage on the walls. In the bathroom, there is repair mesh showing through the texture by the light switch. The caulking around the bathroom sink is cracking. There is cracking above the mirror in the rear section between the first and second sinks on the left. There is incomplete paint and texture to the left of the window for the office. There is cracking below the exit sign in the rear section. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 3 - Door hinges are not leveled.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the door to the study and there were gaps at the bottom left and top left with the door shut. I observed the hinges on the back four doors and they had paint overspray on them. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 4 - Ceiling tile panels are chipped and not correctly cut with water damage.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed one panel at the right rear, above the TV that was not mounted fully. I observed water damage with panels removed but the damage happened after the respondent completed his work. Contractor should correct the one ceiling panel not mounted by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 6 - Middle door in the shop has never been painted.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the middle door in the shop and there was paint chipping/peeling along with sloppy edge work. 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 14, 2025.

On May 23, 2025, Investigator Barrett issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for May 29, 2025. During the inspection, Compliance Items 2, 3, and 6 were deemed not completed.

On June 6, 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 18, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that Respondent had been a licensed contractor for 50 years, with the first license issued in 1975. In those 50 years, Respondent believed only two complaints were ever filed and were resolved quickly. Respondent’s Answer detailed, among other things, the reason for delays, difficulty in working with Complainant, correcting the previous (unlicensed) contractor’s work, unreturned messages, and Complainant’s refusal to communicate.

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 a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for August 6, 2025.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on August 6, 2025.

Background

Regarding complaint item 2, Investigator Barrett testified that this appeared to be partially corrected, but that some overspray remained and the caulking in the sink was still an issue. Respondent testified that this item was in fact corrected during the compliance period, but contended that sometime after Respondent completed the work, but before the compliance inspection, either Complainant (or someone else) added paint/overspray. Additionally, Respondent explained that because the way a wall hung sink is installed, if someone leans on it, the caulking inside the sink will crack. Respondent testified that it had repaired the same caulking previously.

Regarding complaint item 3, Investigator Barrett testified that the door hinges were adjusted, but the hinges still had some overspray. Respondent testified that this item was corrected during the compliance period. In fact, Respondent stated that some hinges were cleaned, but others were replaced entirely. Respondent contended that sometime after Respondent completed the work, but before the compliance inspection, either Complainant (or someone else) tampered with the hinges.

Regarding complaint item 6, Investigator Barrett testified that at the initial jobsite inspection it was unclear whether this item was truly attributable to Respondent. Respondent testified that it painted the door properly. Respondent further contended that sometime after Respondent completed/corrected the work, but before the compliance inspection, either Complainant (or someone else) tampered with the work and added overspray.

Investigator Barrett testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. On questioning, Investigator Barrett stated the corrections were very minor so he did not understand why they would not have been completed, especially as Respondent was there fixing other items.

Complainant testified that he initially hired an unlicensed contractor who did poor work, took payment, and did not finish the project. He further testified that he had difficulty with the ability to pay the down payment at the time of signing the contract and Complainant’s father paid the down payment in March 2024, three months after the contract was signed and work was initiated. Regarding the compliance period, Complainant testified that he had to drive 45 minutes to open the building for Respondent to do corrective work. He admitted that he would schedule a time with Respondent to work and would then show up late. Though Complainant denied tampering with or otherwise “sabotaging” Respondent’s work, Complainant did not dispute any other testimony of Respondent. Complainant stated that Respondent would do “maybe an hour of work” to complete the corrections and “Respondent knows what was agreed on and he was paid.” Complainant admitted that, during the time of the contract, Respondent gave Complainant a personal loan that was not paid back.

Respondent testified to the complaint items as provided above. Additionally, Respondent testified regarding the challenges it encountered during the project which delayed completion and the steps taken to overcome them. Respondent further testified that it requested a courtesy inspection by the City of Chandler prior to bidding on the project because it was aware the previous contractor was unlicensed. On beginning work, multiple unexpected problems created by the unlicensed contractor were encountered, including uncapped wires in the wall that were “hot,” a roof leak, a non-compliant toilet installation, electrical plugs installed/placed incorrectly, and plumbing issues. Regarding the compliance period, Respondent testified that it scheduled with Complainant to perform corrective work, and Mr. Lambson had to drive 200 miles to the building. Complainant would not allow Respondent to work in the building without Complainant present. On one occasion, when Mr. Lambson arrived he received a text message informing him Complainant cancelled and would not be at the building to unlock it. Other times, Complainant would leave after one hour and thus Respondent had to stop working. Additionally, Respondent testified there was a dispute between Complainant and Respondent regarding final payment to Respondent being withheld unless additional work (not included in the initial contract) was performed. Respondent also testified as to the personal loan given from Respondent to Complainant that was not repaid in full.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 6, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 085424 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 Registrar of Contractors process should not be used inappropriately, and if a complainant abuses the process, the complaint should be dismissed. However, legitimate disciplinary claims against a contractor’s license are not rendered an abuse of the process by mere expressions of anger or discontentment.

During the Directive period, homeowners cannot refuse access to a contractor and seek discipline against that contractor. Refusing access impinges on the contractor’s right to defend itself by correcting its work within the Registrar of Contractors process. However, homeowners are not required to give a contractor free reign of the property: they may set reasonable limits on access, while providing the contractor sufficient time and access to correct the issues by appropriate means.

The preponderance of the evidence did not establish 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). Construction is not a perfect art, and a contractor must be afforded an opportunity to correct deficient work before the license is subject to discipline. Respondent provided credible testimony, which Complainant did not dispute, that throughout the project it encountered multiple unexpected challenges due to the previous unlicensed contractor’s work, it took appropriate action to address those issues in order to complete its own contracted work, and encountered many delays on the part of Complainant including not receiving the down payment until three months after work commenced. Therefore, the undersigned ALJ does not find that Respondent failed to perform in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Despite testimony and evidence demonstrating that at minimum, corrective action was attempted and therefore access was granted, there was greater credible evidence presented demonstrating Complainant set unreasonable limits on access, denying Respondent sufficient time and access to correct the issues by appropriate means. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence established that Complainant constructively denied Respondent access to the property and the opportunity to correct the issues. Accordingly, Respondent had a legal justification for its failure to take appropriate corrective action and was not in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

When a party benefits from a situation in which they themselves have acted wrongly while accusing another, it not only goes against common law but, in this instant matter, also undermines the ability of the Registrar to regulate the contracting industry properly and fairly because they wrongfully attempt to shift responsibility onto an innocent party and leaves the Registrar vulnerable to criticism. In order to discourage abuse of the Registrar’s complaint process, it is important to resolve such complaints in a manner that takes care not to have any negative effects on the victim’s license or business so long as the contractor is otherwise not at risk of harming the public. Respondent’s license has been active for 35 years with no open complaints (save the instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled cases. This commendable license record lends additional weight to Respondent’s credible testimony at hearing. Therefore, Respondent does not require disciplinary action on this complaint in order to bring its practice within regulations of the Registrar.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order in this matter, the Registrar close the complaint in Case No. 2025-02734 against Respondent’s license based on Complainant’s failure to provide Respondent reasonable access to comply with the written directive.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, September 21, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Doug Barrett

[email redacted]

James Ivan Lambson

DBA: Lambson Construction,

[email redacted]

Leighann Johson

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff