ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04578-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Allison Harris,

COMPLAINANT,

Sandra Faye Hodges

DBA: Timeless Designs Cabinets,

License No. ROC 324813,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04578-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 25, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Allison Harris appeared on her own behalf. Sandra Faye Hodges and Ryan Hodges appeared on behalf of Respondent Sandra Faye Hodges, doing business as Timeless Designs Cabinets. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Jeremy Rosenthal appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant Allison Harris’ Exhibit J; Respondent Sandra Faye Hodges, doing business as Timeless Designs Cabinets’ Exhibits 5 and pages 18-34.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Sandra Faye Hodges, doing business as Timeless Designs Cabinets (“Respondent”), is the holder of License Number 324813 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about July 30, 2024, Allison Harris (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to procure and install kitchen and laundry room cabinets. The contract price was $35,927.80. Complainant has paid Respondent $32,682.80.

On or about May 7, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Jeremy Rosenthal. After a May 23, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Rosenthal issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated May 27, 2025, 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 Monday, July 7, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Oven cabinet was not cut to proper specifications leaving an opening larger than the oven.

Investigator’s Observation: I observed the face front for the cabinet which was supposed to support the oven and microwave (to be supplied by Complainant) was cut to the wrong measurement. In Lieu of a the proper cut, the installer added wood filler strips and caulk which left an imperfect line that was not consistent with the original face frame and paint. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5 - Overspray from spray paint on ceiling after spraying crown molding.

Investigator’s Observation: A section of crown molding on the tope edge of the upper cabinets on the East side of the kitchen were spray painted by the respondent resulting in overspray being deposited on the side panel of the upper cabinet to the left of the picture window on the South side of the kitchen. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 7 - We paid for a 36” pantry but ultimately received a 33” pantry.

Investigator’s Observation: The pantry located on the East side of the cabinets at the North end of the kitchen measured to be a 33" cabinet. The cabinet was working, the doors closed and the flat drawers inside slid out and back in efficiently. However, the layout diagram which was provided to me by the complainant and agreed upon by the respondent showed a 36" pantry cabinet was supposed to be installed. The respondent was not able to provide any evidence that this cabinet size difference was agreed upon prior to installation. This allegation appears to have two issues:

1) A financial dispute which is not grounds for discipline and therefore not in the jurisdiction of the ROC and 2) A departure from specs of the project without owner consent. It seems the latter holds more weight in this instance since the actual cabinet is present and installed. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 8 - Crown molding in the laundry room is not the correct size and different from kitchen crown molding.

Investigator’s Observation: The crown molding installed on the top edge of the cabinets in the laundry room is about 2 1/2" while the crown molding in the kitchen is about 3 1/2". The respondent acknowledged the difference in size and agreed to remove and replace to match. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 9 - Laundry room cabinet arrived damaged.

Investigator’s Observation: The upper cabinet on the South wall of the laundry room next to the refrigerator had several chips on the frame of the left cabinet and a dent or groove on the right lower door. These had been touched up by the respondent using the manufacturer supplied touch up kit but were still evident as they were not sanded smooth prior to paint application. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 10 - Cabinet restrictors need to be installed on many cabinets

Investigator’s Observation: A cabinet restrictor is a device which is inserted into the hinge of the door in order to prevent the door from opening too far and striking another object. The respondent agreed these were to be installed as a normal course of business. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 2 - Oven cabinet was not replaced or fixed properly after cutting to wrong size specification.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation is a duplicate of issues addressed in item #1. No further action required.

Complaint Item: 3 - Crown molding arrived in the wrong color and does not match cabinets.

Investigator’s Observation: Complainant made several references to the color of the crown molding over the cabinets in the kitchen being different from the cabinet color itself depending on the angle being viewed and the time of day or light source used. The crown molding was provided to the contractor by the manufacturer and it appears to "closely match" that of the cabinet color. No further action required.

Complaint Item: 4 - Portions of the crown molding they sprayed with spray paint and made the color worse and uneven texture.

Investigator’s Observation: A section of crown molding on the tope edge of the upper cabinets on the East side of the kitchen were spray painted by the respondent and it appears to be a smooth and even sheen. No further action required.

Complaint Item: 6 - Cabinet next to the kitchen sink still needs modification so it will close.

Investigator’s Observation: The cabinet which complainant showed me was the lower cabinet to the left of the sink (not yet installed). This cabinet was actually a deep well sliding drawer designed to be used as a cookie sheet organizer. On the back wall, there was a capped drain for future use of the sink. The drawer cannot be cut until the plumbing is complete; the drawer cut will have to follow the outline of the pipe in order to be effective. This was explained to me by the Respondent to be an unpaid service (not associated with any contract) and therefore falls outside of the jurisdiction of the ROC. No further action is required.

Complaint Item: 11 - They added an additional $372.71 to the contract after it was signed for a panel that was not installed.

Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is a Financial dispute and is not grounds for discipline and therefore not in the jurisdiction of the ROC. No further action required.

On May 23, 2025, Investigator Rosenthal received an email from Complainant with additional items of Complaint. Consequently, Investigator Rosenthal scheduled an Addendum Jobsite Inspection on June 10, 2025, during which he verified one additional item of Complaint.

On June 11, 2025, Investigator Rosenthal issued an Addendum Written Directive to Respondent, with the same due date as the original Written Directive, of July 7, 2025. The one item of Complaint added to the Addendum Written Directive is as follows:

Addendum Complaint Item: 12 - Many of the cabinets where the crown molding meets the cabinet, there is not enough caulking to fill the seams.

Investigator’s Observation: ADDENDUM 5-23-25: On 6-10-25 at 1000 I arrived at the complainant residence along with the respondent and I was directed to the East set of upper cabinets. I observed a 1/32” gap in the spacer between the top edge of the upper double cabinet. It was upon this spacer where the crown molding was attached and the caulked area is drying and receding. This was observed by Respondent who was present and this will count as the respondent taking corrective action one time in the first year. After this correction, caulking becomes a homeowner maintenance item. Respondent shall repair by appropriate means.

On July 11, 2025, Investigator Rosenthal conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Rosenthal’s Compliance Jobsite General Notes set forth the following in pertinent part:

The Written Directive was written then emailed and hard copy mailed to both parties on 5-27-25 which provided well over a month to complete the directives. Respondent told the investigator during a phone call on 7-9-25 that all of the work was done and a representative named Steve would attend. Please refer to the following notes indicating the work which was not completed to minimum workmanship standards.

Compliance Findings:

Complaint Item: 1 - Oven cabinet was not cut to proper specifications leaving an opening larger than the oven.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: I observed the face front for the cabinet which was supposed to support the oven and microwave (to be supplied by Complainant) was cut to the wrong measurement. In Lieu of a the proper cut, the installer added wood filler strips and caulk which left an imperfect line that was not consistent with the original face frame and paint. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Cabinet face was changed and appears to be ready to accept the microwave and wall oven. No further action required.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 5 - Overspray from spray paint on ceiling after spraying crown molding.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: A section of crown molding on the tope edge of the upper cabinets on the East side of the kitchen were spray painted by the respondent resulting in overspray being deposited on the side panel of the upper cabinet to the left of the picture window on the South side of the kitchen. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: On the ceiling of the East wall of the kitchen between the upper cabinets on the North side of the kitchen (pantry side) and the uppers on the South side of the kitchen (next to the window) there were some discolorations that were could be felt by touch (Pantry side) and observed by sight (Window side).

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 7 - We paid for a 36” pantry but ultimately received a 33” pantry.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: The pantry located on the East side of the cabinets at the North end of the kitchen measured to be a 33" cabinet. The cabinet was working, the doors closed and the flat drawers inside slid out and back in efficiently. However, the layout diagram which was provided to me by the complainant and agreed upon by the respondent showed a 36" pantry cabinet was supposed to be installed. The respondent was not able to provide any evidence that this cabinet size difference was agreed upon prior to installation. This allegation appears to have two issues:

Compliance Observation: The 33 inch pantry cabinet remained installed. The Respondent suggests that there was a verbal agreement to allow the smaller pantry to remain, however, there was no change order or written agreement provided. Additionally, the Complainant said she did not approve of the change but allowed the smaller cabinet to remain since she just wanted to get the project completed.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 8 - Crown molding in the laundry room is not the correct size and different from kitchen crown molding.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: The crown molding installed on the top edge of the cabinets in the laundry room is about 2 1/2" while the crown molding in the kitchen is about 3 1/2". The respondent acknowledged the difference in size and agreed to remove and replace to match. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: The crown molding in the laundry room was corrected. No further action required.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 9 - Laundry room cabinet arrived damaged.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: The upper cabinet on the South wall of the laundry room next to the refrigerator had several chips on the frame of the left cabinet and a dent or groove on the right lower door. These had been touched up by the respondent using the manufacturer supplied touch up kit but were still evident as they were not sanded smooth prior to paint application. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: The chips on the inside of the left upper cabinet over the laundry machine were painted but clearly still evident. The chip or gouge on the right cabinet door at the same location was over sanded causing the corner to be rounded and the paint did not completely cover the sanded repair.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 10 - Cabinet restrictors need to be installed on many cabinets

Investigator’s Initial Observation: A cabinet restrictor is a device which is inserted into the hinge of the door in order to prevent the door from opening too far and striking another object. The respondent agreed these were to be installed as a normal course of business. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Cabinet door restrictors were in place at the time of this inspection. No further action required.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 12 - Many of the cabinets where the crown molding meets the cabinet, there is not enough caulking to fill the seams.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: ADDENDUM 5-23-25: On 6-10-25 at 1000 I arrived at the complainant residence along with the respondent and I was directed to the East set of upper cabinets. I observed a 1/32” gap in the spacer between the top edge of the upper double cabinet. It was upon this spacer where the crown molding was attached and the caulked area is drying and receding. This was observed by Respondent who was present and this will count as the respondent taking corrective action one time in the first year. After this correction, caulking becomes a homeowner maintenance item. Respondent shall repair by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Some of the spacers between the top of the cabinets and the ceiling which were present at this inspection still had 1/32” gap. Additionally, some of the crown molding in the kitchen was removed and replaced (not associated with this directive) which resulted in additional workmanship issues which are evident in the photos. However, for clarification, there were excessive gaps where miter corners should have been joined, unfilled nail holes, uncaulked ends that meet a wall, excessive or rippled caulk and gaps in the caulking at the top of crown molding that ends at or near the ceiling.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Thereafter, Investigator Rosenthal forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Rosenthal testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directives and the Compliance Jobsite General Notes. Investigator Rosenthal testified that both parties communicated with him during the period of the Written Directive, that the parties had disdain for each other, and while Respondent believed that it had properly completed the required corrective work, Complainant did not agree.

Complainant testified that the kitchen pantry arrived damaged and Respondent ordered a new pantry, however, the second pantry also arrived damaged. A third replacement pantry was ordered, however, Respondent ordered a 33 inch pantry rather than a 36 inch pantry as specified in the plans and specifications for the project.

Ryan Hodges, co-owner of Respondent, testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Hodges acknowledged that a 36 inch pantry with roll out trays had been designated on the plans for the project. The replacement pantry was also 36 inches, however, arrived damaged. Mr. Hodges testified that when it came time to order the third pantry cabinet, Complainant agreed to a 33 inch pantry. Mr. Hodges referenced an email Respondent sent to Complainant on November 25, 2024, that stated: “Hi Allison, we need to know if you want rollouts or shelves for the new 33” pantry cabinet, I can’t order this without that info.” Complainant responded within an hour, “Roll outs, thanks!” However, Mr. Hodges acknowledged that Respondent did not execute a change order for the change in size of the pantry cabinet, and Complainant did not specifically agree to the change in size. Complainant only responded to the question posed about whether she wanted rollouts or shelves. Respondent did not seek further clarification and did not execute a change order.

Mr. Hodges testified that Respondent could not complete the crown molding repair “for many reasons” and that it “required multiple passes” with caulk.

Mr. Hodges asserted that after the Written Directives were issued, Respondent ordered the materials and began working on what Respondent could accomplish. When the oven cabinet was delivered, a small seam was visible. Respondent wanted to ensure that Complainant would accept the cabinet with the seam, prior to installation. Mr. Hodges testified that Complainant would not approve of the cabinet by viewing a photograph, as Complainant wanted to view it in person. Mr. Hodges testified that the parties attempted to schedule a time for such, however, by the time Complainant came to view the cabinet, Respondent could not timely complete the crown molding repair. However, the evidence established that it was not until July 2, 2025, that Respondent notified Complainant of the issue with the seam, July 4th was a holiday, and Complainant viewed the cabinet on July 5, 2025, in a reasonable and timely manner. Further, the initial Written Directive had been issued on May 27, 2025, almost five weeks prior. Therefore, it cannot be said that Complainant caused any delay in Respondent’s compliance with the Written Directives. Moreover, Respondent admittedly did not request an extension of the deadline set forth in the Written Directives.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 30, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 324813 was first issued on June 17, 2019, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled 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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence established that Respondent ultimately ordered a 33 inch pantry cabinet notwithstanding that the plans for the project called for a 36 inch pantry cabinet. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from plans or specifications in a material respect that was prejudicial to Complainant, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directives being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense demonstrating valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainant 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 Respondent’s License Number 324813 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 A.R.S. § 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 A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), 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, October 3, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Sandra Faye Hodges

DBA: Timeless Designs Cabinets

[email redacted]

Allison Harris

[email redacted]

Jeremy Rosenthal

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff