ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04509-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Marianne Williams Bottle,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Michael Dale McGee

DBA: M2 Design,

License No. ROC 335745,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-04509-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 26, 2026, and April 16, 2026

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Marianne Williams Bottle

Respondent: Michael McGee

Registrar of Contractors: Cliff Corlett, 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.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

M2 Design (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 335745 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on November 30, 2021.

On or about March 12, 2025, Marianne Williams Bottle (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent to, among other things, paint select areas of her home. The contract did not include the dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor, the dollar amount of any progress payments and the stage of construction at which the contractor would be entitled to collect, nor was it signed by Complainant.

On or about May 16, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Cliff Corlett, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on July 1, 2025, scheduling the inspection for July 16, 2025.

Investigator Corlett conducted the jobsite inspection on July 16, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on August 28, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 4. Garage Bathroom: Door sticks and paint pulled off door and frame.

Investigator’s Observation: ROC does not know if the doors operated properly prior to Respondents work. However, Respondent removed doors and hinges, painted and rehung the door(s). Doors should operate properly, not stick or drag. RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT ALL STICKING DOORS BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

Complaint Item: 6. Existing floor embedded paint after cleaning by myself and Mr. McGee.

Investigator’s Observation: RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY CLEAN / REMOVE PAINT ON FLOORING.

Complaint Item: 7. Loose flooring not repaired.

Investigator’s Observation: RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY CORRECT LOOSE FLOORING.

Complaint Item: 10. Poor caulking job now requiring additional product to cover it and tear of laminate.

Investigator’s Observation: Caulking work could be straighter and cleaner. RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 13 - Garage door and frame: They poorly painted, chips on door frame, Blue mark on inner garage door.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed. RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 14. Laundry room: Texture overspray on newly purchased skylight.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed. RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 20. Dining room: Painted over texture overspray on baseboards.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 28. Guest bedroom: (AKA Sydney's room) Paint on carpet around baseboards on each wall.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 29. Closet door sticks.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 33. Paint is needed. Touchup is some places as it wasn't given a proper second coat.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 35 - Michael got a product on the top left of bathtub. Curtis looked at it and he started to pull at it. I told him to stop because I was afraid it would pull the coating I previously paid to have painted by specialty steel tubs. Paint consisting of two separate gallons that get mixed were a steel tub, cost of $350. A paint and labor cost was $200. Michael denied doing it. At some point later Curtis went in and pulled the material/ product off and caused a chip in previously painted. It cannot be touched up and the paint cans of 2 gallons each are the only way it is sold. The whole thing will need to be redone.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHOD

Complaint Item: 40. Center light and raised area not finished caulked. Note: Michael started this month's before but never finish it.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 43 - Front door: Outside of front door and frame not painted/ repaired. Note: no credit given damage caused by first painter.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 44. Garage door: Mark on interior garage door to frame on interior.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 45. Garage door not repaired or painted.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 46. Exterior garage door: Mark's on outside door too.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 48. Master bedroom: Door sticks

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 51. Two (2) indents on ceiling were removed after it was decided we were not painting ceiling. Shows marks now, ceiling has to be painted. Curtis McKee did this.

Investigator’s Observation: Nail pops occur in drywall finish. RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS, MATCHING SURROUNDING AREA AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.

Complaint Item: 59. Master bathroom: Door sticks.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 60. Paint behind door needs second coat.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 61. Texture on new skylight.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 64. Second coat of paint. Needed around bathroom window.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 66. No paint done on inside face of drawers.

Investigator’s Observation: No documentation presented to indicate Respondent was to paint the backside of bath vanity drawers. There is excess drawer face paint on inside edge of drawer(s). RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS

Complaint Item: 68. Door sticks.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed; RESPONSDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Corlett of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on September 18, 2025.

On October 30, 2025, Investigator Corlett conducted a compliance inspection. During the inspection, Compliance Items 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 20, 28, 29, 33, 35, 40, 43, 44-46, 48, 51, 59, 60, 61, 66, and 68 were deemed not completed.

On December 15, 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; 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158; and 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on December 28, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that the Work Directive directed Respondent to correct items that were not in Respondent’s contracted scope of work; specifically, Complaint items 7, 14, 20, 28, 35, 40, 43, 45, 46, 51, 61, and 66.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On January 16, 2026, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for February 26, 2026.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on February 26, 2026, with further hearing held on April 16, 2026.

Investigator Corlett testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation.

Complainant testified in support of Investigator Corlett’s testimony. Additionally, Complainant testified that when Respondent completed the corrective work, he used paint from the garage and “touched up” areas around the house. Complaint did not dispute Respondent’s testimony that all work related to the primary bedroom ceiling was removed from the contract.

Michael McGee testified on behalf of Respondent that Complaint items 7, 14, 20, 28, 35, 40, 43, 45, 46, 51, 61, and 66 were not in the contracted scope of work. Specifically, Mr. McGee testified as to the following: Complaint item 7 – the flooring was improperly installed and already damaged prior to Respondent’s work and Respondent did not work on the flooring; Complaint item 14 – applying texture to the skylights was not included in the contract; Complaint item 20 – applying or repairing texture on the baseboards was not included in the contract; Complaint item 28 – the paint on the bedroom floor was present before Respondent’s work; Complaint item 35 – Respondent did not cause damage; Complaint item 40 – work on lights was not included in the contract; Complaint item 43 – Respondent did not work on the exterior of the home including the front door; Complaint item 45 – work on the garage door leading to the yard was not included in the contract; Complaint item 46 – same door as Complaint item 45; Complaint item 51 – Complainant removed all work related to the primary bedroom ceiling from the contract prior to Respondent starting work; Complaint item 61 – this is a second skylight, and same issue as Complaint item 14.

Regarding Complaint items 4, 13, 29, 33, 44, 48, 59, and 68, Mr. McGee testified he did not and would never use the wrong sheen of paint. He picked the paint colors and there were only two sheens, eggshell and semi-gloss. He testified that during the corrective period he painted the entire door again and did not just “touch-up” areas with the wrong sheen. Mr. McGee did not dispute that the touched-up areas were of a different sheen but surmised that another individual must have done so after he completed the corrective work. Mr. McGee testified that the paint on the bedroom carpet was there prior to his work, and he protected the floor. Regarding the skylights in Complaint items 14 and 61, Mr. McGee testified he did not spray texture on the skylights; however, he fixed all the torn tape and open joints of the skylight walls and sprayed just enough texture to fill the voids from the initial texture application done prior to Respondent. Mr. McGee further testified that he did not repair texture or “anything” in the dining room, he only painted the baseboards. Specifically, Mr. McGee testified that he cleaned the baseboards, added caulking where necessary, and painted them as they were. Finally, regarding the chip in the tub surface, Mr. McGee denied that Respondent caused damage. However, he testified that Curtis McKee, who assisted Mr. McGee on the project, removed caulking that had fallen on the tub, but the removal did not cause damage.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 4, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 335745 was ACTIVE; and there was 1 open complaint (instant matter) and no prior 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.”

A contractor accepts the surface upon which they work. Prior to performing work, a contractor should inspect the surface for flaws or defects that would affect the work to be performed; if the surface is unacceptable, the contractor should call the defect to the owner’s attention so that the owner can choose to pay for corrective work or for the contractor to request a warranty disclaimer.

Mr. McGee argued that twelve of the Complaint items were not within the contracted scope of work; specifically, Complaint items 7, 14, 20, 28, 35, 40, 43, 45, 46, 51, 61, and 66. In considering the hearing record, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) agrees with Mr. McGee that Complaint items 7, 40, 43, 46, and 51 were not within the contracted scope of work.

Mr. McGee denied responsibility for Complaint items 14, 20, 28, and 61, regarding overspray on the skylights and dining room baseboards, and paint on the bedroom carpet, claiming the defects existed prior to Respondent’s work. A contractor accepts the surface upon which they work. While the defects of the skylights and carpet did not directly affect Respondent’s ability to perform the work or the results thereof, Respondent should have brought the defects to Complainant’s attention prior to starting work. The texture overspray on the dining room baseboards; however, directly affected the quality of Respondent’s work, resulting in the directive. Although Mr. McGee denies responsibility for the chipped tub, consistent testimony supported that Mr. McKee had removed some material from the tub. Mr. McGee argued that painting the backside of the vanity drawers was not in contracted scope of workand Investigator Corlett acknowledged there was no documentation to support the complaint; however, Investigator Corlett noted there was excess drawer face paint on the inside edge of the drawers for which Respondent was responsible.

Therefore, 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), specifically regarding Complaint items 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 20, 28, 29, 33, 35, 44, 45, 48, 59, 60, 61, 66, and 68.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158.

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 one business day Respondent’s License No. 335745.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $200.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the Order Respondent shall provide an amended contract to the Registrar which establishes compliance with the requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. If Respondent fails to comply, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until it provides a compliant contract.

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, May 8, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Marianne Williams Bottle

[email redacted]

Michael McGee

DBA: M2 Design

[email redacted]

Cliff Corlett, Investigator

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff