ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-06043-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Brad Siegel,

COMPLAINANT,

Four Peaks Painting &

Cabinet Refinishing, LLC

License No. ROC 314229,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-06043-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 18, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Brad Siegel appeared on his own behalf with his wife, Sharyl Siegel. Harrison Zimmermann appeared on behalf of Respondent Four Peaks Painting & Cabinet Refinishing, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Fagerburg appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Four Peaks Painting & Cabinet Refinishing, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 314229 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Harrison Zimmermann is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Member.

In or about March 2025, Brad Siegel (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to refinish Complainant’s kitchen cabinets. The contract price was $6,000.00. Complainant has not paid any amount toward the contract price.

On or about June 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 David Fagerburg. After a July 10, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Fagerburg issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated August 1, 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 August 18, 2025.

Investigator Notes:

1: Upon reviewing the written estimate submitted by the complainant I am able to verify there is at least 1 of the 9 minimum elements of a contract missing violating ARS §32- 1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract. Specifically #1, #2 & #9. Warning letter issued.

2: It is noted that the respondent has not been paid for any work performed and it is more likely than not that the complainant would have paid the respondent if the cabinet refinishing project had been completed satisfactorily.

Complaint Narrative: I was promised a good/service that would be the same in quality and texture as my original good, however after multiple attempts he was unable to meet these standards. I want to ensure that the 4 cabinets/drawers are brought back to the original quality as before the incident occurred.

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

Complaint Item 2: Second Attempt: Cabinet door still mismatched, wrong color and foggy. Also hung incorrectly.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me a kitchen cabinet door that appears to have been refinished which does not match the remaining kitchen cabinets finished color. See P (8) and P (10). During this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where the finish on the hinges of the door observed are 2 different finishes and the hinge does not match the chrome plated clasp where the hinge engages and the hinges have what appears to be a clear coat overspray. See P (11) thru P (13). The complainant stated the door installed may not be a new door as stated by the respondent. I did not observe the door as being hung incorrectly. The respondent shall correct the 1 kitchen cabinet door with a stain color that does not match the remaining kitchen cabinets and provide chrome plated hinges that match the remaining hinges in the kitchen or resolve the matter by other means.

Complaint Item 3: 3 drawers: All different in color from each other (do not match original), foggy and did not fix intended problem.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me 3 drawer fronts that have been refinished with colors that vary and do not match the remaining cabinets. The 3 drawer fronts have a foggy finish and do not have a consistent grain finish at the edges of the drawer fronts. See P (3) thru P (7). The respondent shall correct the 3 drawer fronts with different colors that are foggy and do not match the

remaining kitchen cabinets or resolve the matter by other means.

Additional Requirements:

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 1: First attempt: Cabinet door completely mismatched, wrong color Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant explained that the respondent made a first attempt to provide a refinishing sample using 1 existing kitchen cabinet door and drawer front and when the respondent brought the 2 cabinet components back the color was mismatched compared to the remaining cabinets. The complainant explained that the respondent ordered another door to make a second attempt to match the finish but the first door taken has not been returned. During a phone conversation on June 23, 2025 the respondent acknowledged making an attempt to provide refinishing samples of existing cabinet components and does not disagree with the complainant that the color does not match. The respondent acknowledged the

first door taken was severely damaged and another door was fabricated, stained, delivered and installed. The respondent stated the cabinet material is not solid wood and is made of MDF with a veneer finish. The drawer front will be addressed in complaint item 3. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate that the original door taken to be refinished as a sample has a mismatched color compared to the remaining cabinets as the door has been discarded.

All errors in original.

On September 12, 2025, Investigator Fagerburg conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection and determined that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive as follows:

Complaint Item 2: Second Attempt: Cabinet door still mismatched, wrong color and foggy. Also hung incorrectly.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me a kitchen cabinet door that appears to have been refinished which does not match the remaining kitchen cabinets finished color. See P (8) and P (10). During this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where the finish on the hinges of the door observed are 2 different finishes and the hinge does not match the chrome plated clasp where the hinge engages and the hinges have what appears to be a clear coat overspray. See P (11) thru P (13). The complainant stated the door installed may not be a new door as stated by the respondent. I did not observe the door as being hung incorrectly. The respondent shall correct the 1 kitchen cabinet door with a stain color that does not match the remaining kitchen cabinets and provide chrome plated hinges that match the remaining hinges in the kitchen or resolve the matter by other means.

Compliance Observation: The refinished cabinet door under the kitchen sink is not a close color match on the inside or outside surfaces. See P (6) and P (7). The complainant explained that the other cabinet door under the kitchen sink was used for a color reference by the respondent during the corrective work timeframe and showed me this cabinet door now has damage at the top edge and what appears to be stain marks on the interior of the door and a line of what appears to be the stain or paint used on the door that was refinished. See P (8) thru P (10). This is considered collateral damage.

Governing Rule: The respondent is not incompliance with the directive.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item 3: 3 drawers: All different in color from each other (do not match original), foggy and did not fix intended problem.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me 3 drawer fronts that have been refinished with colors that vary and do not match the remaining cabinets. The 3 drawer fronts have a foggy finish and do not have a consistent grain finish at the edges of the drawer fronts. See P (3) thru P (7). The respondent shall correct the 3 drawer fronts with different colors that are foggy and do not match the remaining kitchen cabinets or resolve the matter by other means.

Compliance Observation: The 3 drawer fronts that were refinished by the respondent are not a close color match. See P (3) thru P (5).

Governing Rule: The respondent is not incompliance with the directive.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Additional Requirements:

The respondent shall submit a sample copy of a revised contract/estimate to this investigator that includes all 9 minimum elements of a contract over $1,000.00 per ARS §32-1158 (A) Minimum elements of a contract. To date the respondent has not provided a sample copy of a written contract that includes all 9 minimum elements of a contract.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

All errors in original.

Thereafter, Investigator Fagerburg 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)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, 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 Fagerburg testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive and Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator Fagerburg testified that there is “significant discoloration” of the cabinets. Investigator Fagerburg referenced the photographs he took during the Jobsite Inspection that depict the deficiencies in Respondent’s work. Investigator Fagerburg further testified that Respondent’s contract document did not contain Respondent’s business address, the mailing address for Complainant, and the jobsite address, as well as the advisement concerning how to file a complaint with the Registrar.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Fagerburg’s testimony. Complainant explained that he contracted with Respondent for Respondent to refinish the cabinets, that were only eight years old, because Complainant wanted “chips refinished,” and Respondent assured him that it could accomplish the work and it would be “perfect.”

Mr. Zimmermann testified that he “put together a sample of a cabinet to make sure [the color] would be perfect.” However, because the cabinets are laminate, they could not be stripped. Mr. Zimmermann testified that at this point, Respondent cannot resolve the issue because when Respondent attempted to remedy the situation, the condition worsened.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 3, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 314229 was first issued on June 28, 2017, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and one complaint 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’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’s written contract for the project does not contain all of the statutorily required elements. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish 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 314229 for a period of seven (7) 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.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine (9) terms required by A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) within thirty (30) days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, December 4, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

David Fagerburg

[email redacted]

Four Peaks Painting & Cabinet Refinishing, LLC

[email redacted]

Brad Siegel

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff