ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03924-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kristin Cook,

COMPLAINANT,

Southwest Developing & Construction, Inc.

License No. ROC 342219,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-03924-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 29, 2026 at 9:00am and February 9, 2026 at 3:00pm

APPEARANCES: Complainant Kristin Cook appeared on her own behalf. Amy Ulmer appeared on behalf of Respondent Southwest Developing & Construction, Incorporated with witnesses Joe Ulmer and Mike Collins. Investigator Cliff Corlett appeared 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 Exhibits 8 – 9, 10, 12 – 13, 17 – 19.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Southwest Developing & Construction, Incorporated (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 342219, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on December 14, 2022.

Kristin Cook (“Complainant”) hired Respondent to build a two-bedroom, one bathroom mother-in-law suite, remodel the front and back patio, new roof, kitchen, and cabinetry work. The work was performed at Complainant’s residential home located in Lake Havasu City, Arizona.

On or about March 20, 2024, Respondent drafted three separate contracts for the project work and Complainant accepted and signed these documents. The total amount of the contracts was $229,155.00 and Complainant paid $244,124.00.

On or about April 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 Cliff Corlett.

On May 14, 2025, the Complaint which primarily addressed a roofing matter was closed due to a resolution between the parties.

A request to reopen the Complaint was made by Complainant and the Registrar granted the request. The Complaint was amended by Complainant on May 15, 2025, June 13, 2025, and July 9, 2025.

On July 18, 2025, Investigator Corlett conducted a jobsite inspection with both parties present.

On July 31, 2025, Investigator Corlett 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 or before August 25, 2025.

. . . .

***PLEASE NOTE***

For various reasons the working relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant had deteriorated to a point where the Complainant has taken over several aspects of completing this project.

Only those items that are/were solely under the control of the Respondent have been addressed as to whether they do or do not meet industry standards and whether or not this Written Directive applies to them. For the items determined to be Respondent responsibility, the Respondent should correct by appropriate methods. The Respondent must be allowed reasonable access to make corrections. (See “A Guide to Written Directives”.)

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 - Dryer and bathroom vent is bad/done incorrectly.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent installed flex tubing for the dryer vent, Code requires ridged smooth wall metal ducting.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

*** NOTE*** Respondent had appropriate HVAC contractor on site to replace the dryer ducting.

RESPONDENT SHOULD ALSO PROPERLY REPLACE, TAPE, TEXTURE AND PAINT TO MATCH THE GARAGE FIRE WALL/DRYWALL.

ALL FIRE WALL PENETRATIONS SHOULD ALSO BE PROPERLY SEALED. RESPONDENT SHOULD PASS ANY/ALL CITY BUILDING INSPECTIONS.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 5 - The incorrect cabinet/drawer material, Doors and

drawers possibly are not made of maple.

Investigator’s Observation: Stickers on bottom of drawers indicate the drawer boxes and cabinet boxes are of a Birch material construction. No information was available for what the actual material the doors and drawer fronts are made of. At the time of the 1st inspection some doors were not installed in the addition and in the existing kitchen.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

Respondent provided a signed document that she states shows that the Complainant agreed to cabinets of the same style and materials as the Respondent office cabinets. Maple doors and drawer fronts and birch construction of the cabinet and drawer boxes.

The Complainant disputes that this document allowed for a change for Maple to Birch. Birch cabinets are a popular choice due to their strength and durability for both solid wood and plywood cabinet construction. There was no reported issues with the construction of the cabinets or door and drawer fronts at this point Birch or Maple would appear to be a contract dispute and or a monetary dispute. Settling money disputes is not a ROC function.

*** NOTE*** Respondent had appropriate personnel on site to install missing doors.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 8 - Plumbing clean out in patio-needs to be flush with patio (licensed plumber).

Investigator’s Observation: Clean out pipe on patio should be cut down so as not to be a trip hazard.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

RESPONDENT SHOULD PASS ANY/ALL CITY BUILDING INSPECTIONS.

*** NOTE*** Respondent had appropriate personnel on site to cut down the patio clean out.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 10 - Large Window incorrect-must be tempered glass (less than 5 foot from pool).

Investigator’s Observation: Code requires tempered glass within 5 ft. of swimming pool. The approved plan, plot plan page showed the new addition and existing pool. There were no measurements on the plan to indicate the distance between the pool and window. LHC inspector pointed out the requirement for the tempered window and the Respondent has indicated that the new tempered window has been ordered and will be installed as soon it becomes available.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

RESPONDENT SHOULD PASS ANY / ALL CITY BUILDING INSPECTIONS.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 13 - Back wall connecting garage to bedroom is incorrect. Entire wall must be 1 hour fire rated including door and all penetration as specified in building plans.

Investigator’s Observation:

LHC inspector identified that the garage door needed to be a fire rated door and the drywall needs to be 5/8 X fire rated. Respondent photos appear to confirm the drywall is fire rated and that a properly rated fire door has been ordered.

RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY PROVIDE AND INSTALL REQUIRED FIRE RATED DOOR.

SEE # 3 ABOVE REGARDING FIRE RATED WALL AND SEALING ANY/ALL WALL PENETRATIONS.

RESPONDENT SHOULD PASS ANY/ALL CITY BUILDING INSPECTIONS.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 14 - Dryer vent in wall and ceiling that Joe installed, is flex line and is incorrect. Hard metal is required and must be done by a license HVAC.

Investigator’s Observation:

Respondent installed flex tubing for the dryer vent, Code requires ridged smooth wall metal ducting.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

RESPONDENT SHOULD PASS ANY / ALL CITY BUILDING INSPECTIONS.

*** NOTE*** Respondent had appropriate HVAC contractor on site to replace the dryer ducting.

RESPONDENT SHOULD ALSO PROPERLY REPLACE, TAPE, TEXTURE AND PAINT TO MATCH THE GARAGE FIRE WALL DRYWALL.

ALL FIRE WALL PENETRATIONS SHOULD ALSO BE PROPERLY SEALED RESPONDENT SHOULD PASS ANY/ALL CITY BUILDING INSPECTIONS. SEE # 3 ABOVE.

On August 13, 2025, Complainant amended the Complaint.

On August 21, 2025, Investigator Corlett conducted another jobsite inspection.

On August 31, 2025, Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 - Dryer and bathroom vent is bad/done incorrectly.

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent installed flex tubing for the dryer vent, Code requires ridged smooth wall metal ducting.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

*** NOTE*** Respondent had appropriate HVAC contractor on site to replace the dryer ducting.

RESPONDENT SHOULD ALSO PROPERLY REPLACE, TAPE, TEXTURE AND PAINT TO MATCH THE GARAGE FIRE WALL DRYWALL.

ALL FIRE WALL PENETRATIONS SHOULD ALSO BE PROPERLY SEALED

. . . .

Complaint Item: 5 - The incorrect cabinet/drawer material, Doors and

drawers possibly are not made of maple.

Investigator’s Observation: Stickers on bottom of drawers indicate the drawer boxes are of a Birch material construction. No information was available for the actual material the doors and drawer fronts are made of. At the time of the 1st inspection some doors were not installed in the addition and in the existing kitchen.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

*** NOTE*** Respondent had appropriate personnel on site to install missing doors.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 8. Plumbing clean out in patio-needs to be flush with patio (licensed plumber).

Investigator’s Observation: Clean out piping on patio should be cut down so as not to be a trip hazard.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

*** NOTE*** Respondent had appropriate personnel on site to cut down the patio clean out.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 10 - Large Window incorrect-must be tempered glass (less than 5 foot from pool).

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

. . . .

Complaint Item: 14 - Dryer vent in wall and ceiling that Joe installed, is flex line and is incorrect. Hard metal is required and must be done by a license HVAC.

Investigator’s Observation:

Respondent installed flex tubing for the dryer vent, Code requires ridged smooth wall metal ducting.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

*** NOTE*** Respondent had appropriate HVAC contractor on site to replace the dryer ducting.

RESPONDENT SHOULD ALSO PROPERLY REPLACE, TAPE, TEXTURE AND PAINT TO MATCH THE GARAGE FIRE WALL DRYWALL. ALL FIRE WALL PENETRATIONS SHOULD ALSO BE PROPERLY SEALED.

On September 8, 2025, Investigator Corlett issued an Amended Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

Written directive issued July 31, 2025 remains in effect. The Complainant had submitted a 3rd addendum with new additional items and a request to reconsider item #7.

The New Compliance Due Date is September 23, 2025.

Addendum Item 1: Sliding Glass door not installed properly allowing the door to sag in the center.

Investigators Observation: After several attempts to get clear installation instructions from Milgard, my findings are that if the door frame is installed by the manufacturer’s instructions, the contractor will fasten the door frame nail flange to the exterior shear panel of the structure. This installation method will leave some of the door threshold hanging past the concrete foundation.

The Complainant has provided some information that would appear to require full support under the threshold but that is not how the installation instructions read. Without specific instructions to the installer on how to install the frame properly by the nailing flange and still have full bearing on the concrete slab, I find the instructions contradicting.

ROC: Unable to make a determination regarding sliding glass door installation.

NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.

Addendum Item 2: Sliding Glass door has “glue or some kind of debris”.

Investigators Observation: Allegation confirmed, even though this should have been addressed by a final clean-up by the Respondent, as of the time of the 3rd onsite inspection (8/21/25) this debris was confirmed. (Since the 8/21/25 meeting the Respondent has sent photos of the sliding glass door that appears the debris has been cleaned.)

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

Addendum Item 3: Termite “mud tubes” appearing at several areas around the new foundation.

Investigators Observation: This should be a warranty issue and Respondent should contact the pest company that did the termite pre-treat to properly assess and correct the situation.

Governing Rule: Warranty issue.

Addendum Item 4: This is a request to revisit the false bottom installation to the bottom of new cabinets so electrical plugs, switches and lighting can be installed under the cabinets.

Investigators Observation: This issue was address in July 31, 2025 Written Directive # 7. NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.

False bottoms not in contract nor any other documentation submitted to the ROC, in addition, ROC field measurements only showed approximately 1 -1/8 inch lippage under existing cabinet bottoms. This Investigator does not believe there is enough clearance to install approved electrical junction boxes and a false bottom panel.

NO CONTRACTOR ACTION REQUIRED.

Following the issuance of the Amended Written Directive, Respondent performed some corrective work. As such, a Compliance Inspection was performed on September 29, 2025, with both parties present. The relevant Compliance Findings were as follows:

All directed correction complete with the exception of items 13 & 14.

Complaint Item: 13 - Back wall connecting garage to bedroom is incorrect. Entire wall must be 1 hour fire rated including door and all penetration as specified in building plans.

Compliance Observation: Fire Door installed but not properly aligned. Too large a margin on strike side of door. 5/16-inch. Latch will not engage properly, strike plate loose. Deadbolt would not operate properly. Hinge screw broken off in door frame. Red fire caulking has been installed but should be painted to match walls.

NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 14 - Dryer vent in wall and ceiling that Joe installed, is flex line and is incorrect. Hard metal is required and must be done by a license HVAC.

Compliance Observation: Red fire caulking has been installed but should be painted to match walls.

NOT CORRECTED

On October 9, 2025, 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 Corlett testified that in regards to Complaint Item 14 that the red fire caulking should be painted to match the walls. Complainant testified that aesthetically the red caulk looked unprofessional. Amy Ulmer, Qualifying Party for Respondent, testified that red fire caulk should not be painted over and that during an inspection, the sealant needed to be visible to confirm proper installation during inspections. Joe Ulmer, Respondent Superintendent, testified that he spoke with the local jurisdiction inspector who advised fire caulking should not be painted over. In addition, Respondent provided manufacturer guidance from Hilti, a leading firestop systems provider, that stated the following in pertinent part:

Fire Caulk purpose works by creating a barrier to contain fire, smoke, and toxic gases, giving occupants more time to escape and firefighters more time to respond. When exposed to heat, intumescent fire caulks expand to create an airtight seal in gaps and penetrations.

Intumescent Failure – Many firestop sealants swell and char when heated (intumescent action) to block fire; paint can prevent this expansion.

Painting over intumescent firestop sealants is not recommended because it can influence or affect the speed of the intumescent reaction, and thus the fire-resistance performance of the firestop product.

In regards to Complaint Item 13, Investigator Corlett and Complainant both testified that the fire door was not properly aligned and installed. Investigator Corlett testified that he did not believe Complainant denied access to Respondent. Complainant testified that Respondent had 42 days in order to address this complaint item. Complainant testified that the fire door broke on August 18, 2025 due to an extractor and screw issue and she was told by Respondent on September 11, 2025 that a new screw was ordered and on its way. Complainant further testified that Respondent came over on Friday, September 19, 2025 around 7:00am, however, Complainant needed to leave at 9:30am to go to work. Complainant testified that she worked approximately 22 hours a week which included working on Fridays from 9:30am to 3:00pm. As such, Ms. Ulmer testified that her team was asked to leave and they were unable to fix the door at that time. Per Respondent’s Exhibit 17, Respondent had access to work on the fire door on nine out of the fifteen days during the Amended Written Directive period from September 8, 2025 to September 23, 2025.

Ms. Ulmer testified that the total amount of all three contracts was $253,864.00 and that Complainant still owed $16,534.75. Ms. Ulmer further testified that Complainant paid out $237,369.25. Complainant did not disagree with this testimony.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 29, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 342219 was Active. Such prior License record also reflected that there were three open complaints and no complaints resulting in discipline 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. 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.”

In this case, in respect to Complaint Item 14, Complainant failed to establish that Respondent’s caulking of the fire wall sealant was not performed in a workmanlike manner. Despite the finding by Investigator Corlett, the evidence established that Respondent properly caulked the fire wall sealant with the caulk visible around pipes and electrical, and that painting over the red caulk would be against manufacturer’s guidelines. As such, Complaint Item 14, does not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

However, the evidence did establish that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards in regards to the fire door, Complaint Item 13. Respondent asserted the affirmative defense, denial of access. During the Directive period, a property owner must provide reasonable access to allow the contractor to fix their work as directed by the Registrar in a written directive. Property owners must make access available to contractors to make the required repairs and failure to provide reasonable access may result in the Registrar dismissing the complaint. The deadline in the Amended Written Directive was issued to allow Respondent an opportunity to complete the job and correct any workmanship issues. In this case, the Tribunal did not find there to be a denial of access given the events described above.

The evidence established that Respondent had access to the property nine out of the fifteen days during the Amended Written Directive period which were more days than not to make these repairs which constituted a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, Respondent did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a denial of access. As such, 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).

Hence, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Amended Written 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 342219 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $50.00 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 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, March 2, 2026.

/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]

Southwest Developing & Construction, Inc.

1750 N. McCulloch Blvd N., Ste. 114

Lake Havasu City, AZ 86405

[email redacted]

Kristin Cook

614 Foothill Drive

Lake Havasu, AZ 86404

[email redacted]

Cliff Corlett

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff