ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-06849-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Tangi Herndon,

COMPLAINANT

v.

K OS REMODELERS LLC,

License No. ROC 356602,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-06849-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 30, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Tangi Hernon

Respondent: Milton Shackleford

Registrar of Contractors: Aaron King, 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

K OS Remodelers LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 356602 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on January 17, 2025.

On or about April 25, 2025, Tangi Herndon (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a bathroom remodel.

On or about July 14, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Aaron King, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on July 15, 2025, scheduling the inspection for August 28, 2025.

Investigator King conducted the jobsite inspection on August 28, 2025, at which Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator King issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on September 22, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 3- Tile grout uneven and missing in areas

Investigator’s Observation: Field review of the grout saw uneven grout, poor workmanship and voids in locations that require full grout coverage. Joint fullness and finish were inconsistent and not maintained to uniform plane. According to Arizona ROC Workmanship Standards, work must be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner. Additionally, grout line thickness was found to be random and inconsistent when measured in the same installation. Grout lines were found to be 1/16”, with a second measurement at 1/8”, a third again at 1/16” and the fourth measuring 3/32” reflecting non uniform installation. The observed grout conditions do not meet minimum workmanship standards. Verified uneven joint fullness, poor grout workmanship and varying grout thickness between tiles, the Respondent will need to correct these by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 4- Tile not sealed at base of tub

Investigator’s Observation: At the tile to tub junction, the onsite observation showed a rough, grey sealant bead with voids and inconsistent tooling, with areas appearing unsealed and the color mismatched to adjacent finishes. At wet area changes of plane, a continuous, properly bonded and tooled flexible sealant is required (TCNA EJ171; ASTM C920) rather than grout, and under Arizona ROC Workmanship Standards, work must be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner. The condition observed does not meet that standard functionally or cosmetically. The Respondent will correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5- Faucet in tub not sealed

Investigator’s Observation: The tub spout escutcheon and its rubber gasket were verified loose and not seated. The spout neck’s projection from the finished wall appears insufficient to allow the trim to mount and seal properly, leaving the penetration unsealed. Fixtures are required to be installed in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and work must be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner as noted in the Arizona ROC Workmanship Standards. The conditions show do not meet the standards stated. The Respondent will correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 7- Outlet in shower area

Investigator’s Observation: On site verification found a receptacle within the bathtub/shower area which was inside 3 feet horizontally from the outside edge and within 8 feet vertically from the rim/threshold. This makes it prohibited for a receptacle placement under NEC 406.9© (the identified zone includes the space directly over and adjacent to the tub/shower). Bathroom receptacles also require GFCI protection per NEC 210.8(A), but the placement itself violates 406.9(C) regardless of GFCI. The Respondent will correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 10- Vinyl planks were not locked that were installed near vanity

Investigator’s Observation: On site inspection verified unlocked vinyl plank joints at the vanity area, with measurable gaps up to 1/16 inch and additional locations at approximately 1/64 inch, as well as localized vertical displacement sufficient to expose the full edge of the adjacent planks. These conditions indicated inconsistent engagement and an uneven finished plane. The installation of resilient plank flooring must conform to the manufacturer’s instructions, and work must be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner, as noted in the Arizona ROC Workmanship Standards. The Respondent will correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 11- Trim around floor tiles installed not properly laid

Investigator’s Observation: At the flooring perimeter adjacent to floor tile, quarter round trim was observed with visible gaps and sections not fully covering the expansion space. In the bath/wet areas, the trim was not sealed. Industry standards require perimeter expansion gaps to be fully concealed by trim and, in wet locations, sealed with appropriate silicone to limit water intrusion under resilient flooring. Work must be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner and in accordance with applicable industry standards. The observed conditions do not meet these requirements. The Respondent will correct these by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 12- Tile at base of tub unsealed

Investigator’s Observation: At the tile to tub junction, on site observation showed uneven and jagged tile cuts at the tub edge and the absence of a continuous, properly tooled sealant joint. TCNA W244 (wall tile at tub/shower) details a sealed movement joint at the tub interface. ANSI A108.10 further requires grout work to present uniform, properly finished joints without voids or ragged edges. Arizona ROC Workmanship Standards require that the tiles are installed in a professional and workmanlike condition. The work does not conform to the applicable industry standards and the Respondent will correct this by the appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 14- Drywall not textured or smoothed

Investigator’s Observation: Drywall work with visible texture mismatch and unfinished appearance was present. Patch edges telegraph, feathering is inconsistent and the surface reads differently than surrounding walls, giving a “work in progress” look rather than a finished surface. Work must be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner; accepted gypsum standards (ASTM C840/GA-214 Levels of Finish) require repairs to be finished to a uniform plane and texture consistent with adjacent surfaces prior to paint. The present condition does not meet these requirements. The Respondent will correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 17- Stains left on floor from not using a drop cloth during work

Investigator’s Observation: The Complainant showed a white stain on the floor beneath the vanity consistent with construction materials used at the project, along with drywall remnants and dust left behind. On the preponderance of evidence scale, these conditions are attributable to the work and reflect inadequate protection/cleanup. Work must be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner including protecting adjacent finishes and leaving the area clean. The Respondent will correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 18- Vanity not flush to wall

Investigator’s Observation: Gaps were found between the vanity’s pre-installed backsplash and the wall, with no sealant present, and no evidence that the cabinet was anchored to the wall. Plumbing fixtures must be installed per manufacturer instructions and set level, plumb, and in proper working order (IRC P2705.1/IPC 303.1), and where fixtures contact walls the joint shall be made watertight (IPC 405.4.2). The unsealed contact and lack of anchoring do not meet these requirements, verifying that the vanity is not flush to the wall for these reasons, and violating the Arizona ROC’s Workmanship Standards that a contractor shall work in a professional and workmanlike manner. For these items, the Respondent will correct these by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 20- Bidet purchased, not installed

Investigator’s Observation: There was no bidet installed on the master toilet. This complaint item is verified as agreed upon work in the contract and absent from the work performed in the residence. The Respondent will correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 23- Towel rack not installed

Investigator’s Observation: The existing towel rack was removed leaving damage on the wall requiring a paint repair. This was verified on site as a blemish. The Respondent will need to correct the damage initiated by the removal of the towel rack by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 24- Vanity wall needs drywall repair and paint

Investigator’s Observation: On site review documented incomplete drywall and texturing at the vanity wall with visible feathering /telegraphing and a cosmetic mismatch to adjacent finishes, indicating the area was left in a repair state rather than a finished surface ready for paint. Under acceptable gypsum standards (ASTM C840/BA-214 Levels of Finish), repairs must be brought to a uniform plane and texture consistent with surrounding walls prior to paint. This condition does not meet those requirements. The Respondent will correct this by the appropriate means.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator King of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 12, 2025.

On or about October 10, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator King that no corrective work had been performed on the project.

On October 20, 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 November 3, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that Complainant refused to allow Respondent and other contractors hired by Respondent access to her property.

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

On November 20, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for December 30, 2025.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on December 30, 2025.

Investigator King testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, compliance inspection, and the Citation. Specifically, Investigator King noted a compliance inspection was not performed because Complainant advised that no corrective work had been done. Investigator King also testified that Respondent did not reply to any communication from him, all communication with Respondent was outbound only.

Complainant testified in agreement with Investigator King’s testimony. Further, Complainant testified that during the compliance period no communication from Respondent was received and no corrective work was attempted.

Respondent testified that he performed work outside the scope of the contract to help Complainant. He stated there were supply chain issues that caused delay and during which he did additional work. Respondent testified that change orders were not submitted because he did not want to do the paperwork. He further testified that on four separate occasions he scheduled and sent subcontractors to finish the project, but each time access was denied. On questioning, Respondent testified that although he could not remember exact dates of when he sent subcontractors, it was sometime in June and July. Respondent admitted that he did not attempt to perform any corrective work during the compliance period.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 30, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 356602 was Active; and there were two open complaints, 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.”

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.

Change orders protect both parties to a contract. They ensure that the service-providing party has a record of work done and a documentary basis for payment; they also ensure that the service-receiving party consents to work being done and amount charged for the service. Material increases in work or costs without consent from both parties may not be enforceable or a basis for discipline. Accordingly, if a service-providing party knowingly failed to include material costs in an estimate or contract and failed to provide change orders to reflect such costs, the service-receiving party may not be responsible for those charges.

In the instant case, there was no dispute that Respondent did not attempt to complete any corrective work after the Written Directive was issued. Respondent was present at the jobsite inspection and did not inform Investigator King at that time or thereafter, that he had a legal excuse for noncompliance.

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).

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 two business days Respondent’s License No. 356602.

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, February 5, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Aaron King, Investigator

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

OS REMODELERS LLC

[email redacted]

Tangi Herndon

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff