ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-07326-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Kimberly A Wuest,

COMPLAINANT

STEVENS FAMILY CONSTRUCTION, INC.

License No. ROC 338692,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-07326-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 7, 2026, and April 10, 2026

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Kimberly Wuest

Andrea Arciga

Respondent: Lawrence Felder, Esq.

Chad Stevens

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.

Complainant Exhibit 7.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Stevens Family Construction, Inc. (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 338692 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on June 10, 2022.

On or about May 7, 2025, Kimberly Wuest (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a home interior remodel. The contract did not contain an estimated date of completion nor a provision that Complainant could file a complaint with the Registrar.

On or about July 24, 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 August 8, 2025, scheduling the inspection for August 25, 2025.

Investigator Corlett conducted the jobsite inspection on August 25, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Corlett issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on September 24, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Cracks remain at wall joints and ceiling seams, suggesting improper finishing.

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

Complaint Item: 3 - Inconsistencies in paint coats and unfinished painting in many areas of most rooms.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed. Respondent acknowledged that several areas needed additional coat(s) of paint. RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY REPAINT ANY AND ALL AREAS AS NEEDED TO ACHEIVE PROPER COVERAGE AND UNIFORM APPEARANCE. ***NOTE*** Since the Complainant provided the paint for this project, the Complainant must provide additional paint for all repairs.

Complaint Item: 4 - A level 4 drywall finish was finished painted over with a roller method, creating an unwanted texture inconsistent with level 4 finish.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed. THESE AREAS SHOULD BE REWORKED AND REPAINTED TO ACHEIVE A LEVEL 4 DRYWALL FINISH.

Complaint Item: 5 - Ceiling touch-ups were rolled over originally sprayed finishes, resulting in very visible and unsightly sheen and color.

Complaint Item: 6 - Multiple areas show insufficient paint coverage, including unpainted woodwork, walls, and ceilings.

Complaint Item: 7 - Overpainting is evident along ceiling-to-wall and trim transitions due to lack of proper masking.

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

Complaint Item: 8 - Damage to subflooring in the living room area, from the work crew’s AC unit was promised to be replaced but was not.

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

Complaint Item: 10 - Concrete subfloors in the kitchen and third bedroom remain significantly uneven and are not flooring-ready.

Investigator’s Observation: Industry standards are that concrete floors should not vary from flat more than 1/4-inch over a 10-ft area provided the deviation is gradual. Deviations, dips or sags over short distances and or easily visible to the eye may be considered unacceptable. RESPONDENT SHOULD CONFIRM ALL WORKED ON FLOOR AREAS ARE WITHIN THESE STANDARDS AND PROPERLY CORRECT ANY/ALL AREAS THAT DO NOT MEET STANDARDS.

Complaint Item: 11 - Window sills were left incomplete, with rough corners, inconsistent texture, jagged finishes, and visible brush marks on.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed. Holes, lines and other "blemishes" that required additional joint compound and or sanding were noted around this project. RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY EXAMINE PROJECT FOR POORLY/INADEQUATLTY FINISHED DRYWALL AREAS THAT DO NOT MEET LEVEL 4. THESE AREAS SHOULD BE REWORKED AND REPAINTED TO ACHEIVE A LEVEL 4 DRYWALL FINISH.

Complaint Item: 12 - Other drywall patches were brushed and not properly blended.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed. THESE AREAS SHOULD BE REWORKED AND REPAINTED TO ACHEIVE A LEVEL 4 DRYWALL FINISH.

Complaint Item: 13 - Paint was over sprayed or over-brushed onto white ceilings and woodwork.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation confirmed. RESPONDENT 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 October 18, 2025.

On November 1, 2025, Investigator Corlett issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for November 14, 2025. During the inspection, Complaint Items 1, 3-7, and 10-13, were deemed not completed.

On December 10, 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); 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158; and 32-1154(A)(22).

On December 17, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation denying all allegations.

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

On January 6, 2026, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for February 18, 2026.

On or about February 16, 2026, Complainant requested that the hearing be continued.

On or about February 23, 2026, the parties were notified the hearing was continued to April 7, 2026. The order granting the continuance from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on April 7, 2026, with further hearing held on April 10, 2026.

Investigator Corlett testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. On questioning, Investigator Corlett testified that the issues were not isolated, but found throughout the home. Additionally, he could not inspect the second floor because at the time of the jobsite inspection there was no handrail on the stairs and at the compliance Inspection, though installed, it did not extend to the bottom of the stairs.

Investigator Corlett provided detail regarding drywall “levels.” He explained that levels have to do with taping and an allowable amount of tool marks, etc. Areas that had been taped and sanded would come out smoother than actual drywall. Light would show any imperfections above a level 4. Using a flashlight is a way to inspect for imperfections; however, the Registrar uses only natural light from a distance to inspect. Investigator Corlett testified that regarding the instant matter, even in just natural light, without the aid of a close-up micro inspection or a bright flashlight, he observed numerous areas where imperfections were noticeable.

Ms. Arciga, on behalf of Complainant, testified in support of and elaborated on Investigator Corlett’s testimony regarding the Complaint items. Complainant called two additional witnesses, Anthony Guiterez, Tile and Remodel Contractor, and Thomas Catone, Painter. Both Mr. Guiterez and Mr. Catone provided testimony consistent with Investigator Corlett’s testimony as to the incomplete Complaint items.

Chad Stevens, on behalf of Respondent, testified that he “took care of everything pointed out at the inspection and redid the entire house.” He testified that two workers were onsite performing corrective work eight hours daily for nine days. Mr. Stevens testified that Complainant chose the paint, which Respondent found difficult to use. Mr. Stevens further testified regarding Complaint item 10, subflooring, that he was under the impression he was going to complete the flooring, so “[he] made it to where [he] knew [he] could make everything work without conflicting the other areas.” However, he testified, after Ms. Arciga advised him that “her flooring guy” would not accept it as it was, he told her if he went any further it would complicate other areas, he did not feel comfortable doing it, she could take the line item off, and he would not charge for it. On further questioning, Mr. Stevens testified, “I wasn’t contracted to do the flooring and stuff like that.” Mr. Stevens contended the cracks in the walls were likely from expanding/contracting because there was no air conditioning in the house while Respondent was working. Mr. Stevens stated that he felt the complaint about the quality of work was just “nitpicking” because Complainant did not want to pay him.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 28, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 338692 was ACTIVE; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), 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.”

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 Compliance Items 1, 3-7, and 10-13.

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), specifically regarding Compliance Items 1, 3-7, and 10-13.

“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license . . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend, for three business days, Respondent’s License No. 338692.

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 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, April 30, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Lawrence J. Felder, Esq.

Resolvere Law PLLC

[email redacted]

Kimberly A Wuest

[email redacted]

STEVENS FAMILY CONSTRUCTION, INC.

[email redacted]

Cliff Corlett, Investigator

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff