ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-07055-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Thomas Drees and Stephanie Drees,

COMPLAINANTS,

v.

AZ Master Group, LLC

License No. ROC 332158,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-07055-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 8, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainants Thomas and Stephanie Drees appeared on their own behalf. Jana Sampson appeared on behalf of Respondent AZ Master Group, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Fagerburg appeared as a witness. Amanda Norton, Cheryl Naumann, and Erica Vermeij appeared as witnesses.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainants Thomas and Stephanie Drees’ Exhibits A, B, C, E, F, H, and M; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

AZ Master Group, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of a class B-3 General Remodeling and Repair Contractor, License Number 332158, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Jana Whiteley Sampson is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and a Member of Respondent. Arkadi Zverjako, Ms. Sampson’s father, is also a Member of Respondent. A class B-3 General Remodeling and Repair Contractor classification allows the licensee to remodel and repair an existing residential structure or appurtenance except for electrical, plumbing, mechanical, boilers, swimming pools, spas and water wells, which must be subcontracted to an appropriately licensed contractor.

In or about September 2024, Thomas and Stephanie Drees (“Complainants”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform an extensive remodel of Complainants’ home. The contract price was $201,049.00. Complainants have paid Respondent in excess of the contract amount.

On or about July 17, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainants alleging abandonment of the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg. After a September 18, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Fagerburg issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated October 7, 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 Wednesday October 29, 2025.

Investigator Notes:

1: During this jobsite investigation the respondent allowed 5 addendum complaint items to be addressed.

2: Prior to jobsite investigation during a phone conversation on August 5, 2025 the respondent acknowledged the written contract is under Yana Whiteley Interiors and is collecting money from the complainant and paying the subcontractors violating ARS § 32-1154 (A) (14) (Wrong Name). Warning letter issued.

3: Upon reviewing the written contract 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 #5 and #9. Warning letter issued.

4: At this jobsite investigation the respondent’s father acknowledged performing plumbing work and is not a licensed plumbing contractor violating ARS § 32-1154 (A) (16) (Out of Scope). Warning letter issued.

Complaint Narrative: She collected $215k from us for doors, granite, furniture, many other specific items. She never ordered them. Had 4 subcontractors contact us for nonpayment of their work that she hired. Have contacted 3 other families that she has stolen from as well. Determined she used our down payment to payoff the other debts

she had. Needs to be STOPPED

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

Complaint Item 1: Orders paid for never actually ordered.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a kitchen remodel project with the kitchen island countertop being installed. Both parties acknowledged the workers currently installing the kitchen countertop is the original subcontractor hired by the respondent. See P (3). Both parties acknowledged the countertop subcontractors have not been paid. During this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged that some of the material orders paid for by the complainant have not been ordered including the custom front door, patio sliding door, the primary bath partition French doors and wet bar upper cabinets. See P (7) thru P (11). Upon reviewing the written contract submitted by the complainant I am able to verify the project full completion date listed is January 31, 2025 and project delays are not the result of change orders by the complainant. The respondent shall ensure all material orders paid for by the complainant are procured/installed and complete the project per

the written contract in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 2: Cabinet and granite work never completed.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where the existing wet bar upper cabinets have not been replaced. See P (7). During this jobsite investigation the kitchen island granite is currently being installed by the respondent’s subcontractor at the complainant’s expense to keep the project moving forward. Both parties acknowledged the countertop subcontractors have not been paid by the respondent. The complainant stated that the kitchen island cabinet subcontractor completed the kitchen island cabinet installation and has been paid by the complainant to keep the project moving forward. See P (3). It is noted that the ROC cannot direct the respondent to provide reimbursement for completed work paid for by the complainant over and above what has been paid to the respondent for the project. Upon reviewing the written contract submitted by the complainant I am able to verify the project full completion date listed is January 31, 2025. The respondent shall ensure the wet bar cabinets are procured/installed and

complete the cabinet and granite installation per the written contract in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 3: Damage during construction never fixed

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the kitchen of the home the complainant showed me a stovetop exhaust hood with numerous scratches on the surface and damaged flooring with chips and scratches on the surface. See P (4) thru P (6) and P (12) thru P (15). The respondent acknowledged all the damages in the kitchen were reported by the complainant within 10 days and planned to correct the damages at the end of the project. The respondent shall correct the damaged caused and complete the project per the written contract in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 4: Paid for doors, granite, cabinetry and she never ordered. Stole over $80,000 from us.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I had no knowledge as to whether or not the respondent stole $80,000.00 from the complainant. During this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged that some of the material orders paid for by the complainant have not been ordered including the front door, patio sliding

door, the primary bath partition French doors and wet bar upper cabinets. See P (7) thru P (11). Upon reviewing the written contract and proof of payment submitted by the complainant I am able to verify the total contract amount as being $201,049.00 and the respondent has received a total of $214,932.91. It is this investigators opinion that the project is approximately 65% complete with major materials missing or that have not been ordered. The respondent shall procure any and all materials required and complete the project per the written contract in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 1: Over spray paint on window frame

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify there is over spray paint on the top of the window frame. See P (16). The respondent shall correct the overspray paint on the window frame and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 2: Drywall above Kitchen Island poorly patched

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify the drywall above the kitchen island is poorly patched. See P (17). The respondent shall correct the drywall above the kitchen island that is poorly patched and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 3: Kitchen drywall bullnose has a hole

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify there is an incomplete drywall bullnose joint at the kitchen ceiling skylight. See P (18) and P (19). The respondent shall correct the drywall bullnose joint at the kitchen ceiling skylight and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 4: Adhesive on office baseboard and flooring damage

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where there appears to be adhesive remnants on the baseboards in the office that occurred during the wall paper installation. I also observed flooring that appears to have drywall dust impregnated into the flooring surface. See P (20) thru P (25). The respondent shall correct the adhesive remnants on the office baseboards and damaged flooring from drywall dust throughout the office and complete the project in a timely

manner by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 5: Inadequate paint coverage at the office ceiling

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify there is inadequate paint coverage on the office ceiling, See P (26) and P (27). The respondent shall correct the inadequate paint coverage at the office ceiling and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Additional Requirements:

The respondent shall submit a sample copy of a revised contract 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 by the compliance date listed above.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 5: Never paid subcontractors for their work on wallpaper/installation, Kitchen Island remodel, granite installation

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the respondent stated that some of the subcontractors have been paid but not all. The ROC cannot direct the respondent to pay the subcontractors. A licensed subcontractor may file a non-payment complaint against the respondent.

Investigator Fagerburg did not conduct a Compliance Inspection due to the fact that on October 29, 2025, Respondent sent him an email that stated: “I am writing in response to the written directive regarding the property associated with the complaint filed by Mr. and Mrs. Dress. The items identified for correction in the directive have not been rectified. The clients have been notified of this via email and are aware of the current status.”

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)(8), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(14), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16), 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 his Jobsite Inspection notes, the Written Directive, and Compliance Notes. Investigator Fagerburg testified that the name that appears on Respondent’s remodeling contract is “Jana Sampson with Yana Whiteley Interiors,” and refers to such as the “Contractor” for the project repeatedly through the document. The document states that the scope of work to be performed is as follows: “Remodeling Services. Contractor/Designer shall perform primary remodel services outlined in the Estimate No 0000003. The Services are to be performed at the following address: 10546 E Monument Dr, Scottsdsdale AZ 85262 (“Property”).” Investigator Fagerburg asserted that Respondent acted in the capacity of a general contractor by collecting monies and paying subcontractors. Investigator Fagerburg further explained that Respondent’s work exceeded the scope of its licensure because Respondent’s license does not allow for the performance of electrical, plumbing, and HVAC, and at the Jobsite Inspection, Respondent’s father, Arkadi Zverjako, admitted to performing the plumbing work, and is not licensed to do so.

Investigator Fagerburg also testified regarding the workmanship deficiencies he observed and documented in photographs during the Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Fagerburg opined that only about sixty-five percent of the scope of work was completed at the time of the Jobsite Inspection, and although Complainants terminated the contract with Respondent on July 15, 2025, the parties’ contract contained a completion date of January 31, 2025. Therefore, the project should have already been completed long before Complainants terminated the contract. Investigator Fagerberg testified that during the Jobsite Inspection, Ms. Sampson’s father asked her, “what she did with $100,000.00” and she replied, “it was gone” and “she didn’t have the money.”

Investigator Fagerburg testified that Respondent’s contract document does not contain the required advisement concerning a property owner’s right to file a complaint with the Registrar.

Investigator Fagerburg testified that there was no evidence provided to him regarding any denial of access by Complainants and that Respondent admittedly made no attempt to comply with the Written Directive.

Mr. Drees agreed with Investigator Fagerburg’s testimony. Mr. Drees testified regarding several exhibits that were admitted into evidence, including Complainants’ Exhibit A that consisted of several text messages from Ms. Sampson evidencing that she undertook the project as a general contractor, not an interior designer, stating “ . . . five years ago I got my GC license,” “[w]e have our own crew as well as trusted subcontractors that we work with,” and “I’ve done projects where we completely gutted the interior of the property . . .” The text messages also state that the project would be completed by February 1, 2025.

In a July 21, 2025 email from Ms. Sampson to Complainants, Ms. Sampson stated the following in pertinent part:

. . . I take full responsibility for the mismanagement, unpaid subcontractors, and property damage . . .

Outstanding Subcontractor Payments: I acknowledge the amounts owed: $12,650 to Countertop contractor, $3,310 to NALTAS’S Wallcoverings, and $14,000 to Royal Woodinc.

Property damage (Floors, hood vent, kitchen molding etc.): I acknowledge that damage to some parts of property and general cleanliness issues occurred during the project, and I take full responsibility. Those were meant to be addressed upon completion of the project.

Project Payments and Financial Concerns:

. . . .

To address the total amount of over $80,000 cited, I am compiling a comprehensive financial reconciliation of the amounts owed to you back . . . If immediate full repayment is not feasible, I will propose a structured payment plan, to be finalized after your review.

Mr. Drees testified that materials suppliers and subcontractors billed Respondent, not Ms. Sampson’s interior design company, and that Ms. Sampson used her contracting license to hire subcontractors and coordinate payments.

Mrs. Drees testified that a lien was placed on their property on May 10, 2025, because Respondent did not pay subcontractors. Complainants paid Respondent to order doors for the project, and they were never ordered notwithstanding that Respondent collected money from Complainants for that purpose. Ms. Sampson told Complainants that the cabinets had been ordered and had arrived, yet Respondent did not actually order the cabinets, and Ms. Sampson was paid $6,700.00 for the kitchen island that Mrs. Drees asserted Respondent paid to the wallpaper subcontractor.

Three witnesses appeared on Complainants’ behalf, all of whom experienced similar issues with Respondent. Complainants did not call the witnesses to testify due to the fact that the testimony would not have focused on Complainants’ Complaint, but rather on the witnesses’ respective projects which were outside the scope of the instant hearing.

Ms. Sampson did “not deny wrongdoing” and admitted that “management mistakes were made.” Ms. Sampson asserted that some damage is “normal” and would have been addressed during the final punch list. Regarding damage to the floor, Ms. Sampson asserted that the damage was caused by Complainants’ son.

Ms. Sampson admitted that she did not contact Complainants or perform any of the corrective work directed by the Written Directive due to “scheduling and manpower issues.”

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 14, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 332158 was first issued on February 4, 2021, 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.

Complainants bear 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 portions of Respondent’s work were not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainants 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 failed to complete the project for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract, as evidenced by the amount of work that remained on the project and the amounts already paid to Respondent. Therefore, Complainants established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8).

The evidence established that Respondent’s contract did not contain the statutorily required advisement that the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar. Therefore, Complainants 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 was acting in the capacity of a contractor under its license in a name other than as set forth on the license, specifically as Yana Whiteley Interiors. Therefore, Complainants established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(14).

The evidence established that Ms. Sampson’s father, a member of Respondent, admittedly performed the plumbing for the project, notwithstanding not being properly licensed to do so. Therefore, Complainants established that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and acknowledged such. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainants 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).

The Registrar’s Mission is to: “[p]rotect the health, safety and welfare of the public through a regulatory system designed to promote quality construction by Arizona contractors.” Given the egregious violations of this State’s contracting laws, and to protect the public from further harm, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a revocation of Respondent’s license is warranted in this case.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License Number 332158.

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, January 16, 2026.

/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]

AZ Master Group, LLC

[email redacted]

Thomas and Stephanie Drees

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff