ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-08910-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-23
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Anne St Pierre,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
American Eagle Construction & Steel Buildings LLC
DBA: High Desert Buildings & Barns,
License No. ROC 332321,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-08910-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 19, 2026 at 9:00am and February 26, 2026 at 8:15am
APPEARANCES: Complainant Anne St. Pierre appeared on her own behalf with witness Matthew Evans. Attorney Lawrence Felder represented Respondent American Eagle Construction & Steel Buildings, LLC, dba: High Desert Buildings & Barns with witness Jeff Sanford. Observer Steven Herbertson. Investigator Jim Dimond appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant Exhibits 4, 5 (pages 1-3), and 10 (page 2). Respondent Exhibit 2.
FINDINGS OF FACT
American Eagle Construction & Steel Buildings, LLC, dba: High Desert Buildings & Barns (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 332321, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on February 19, 2021.
On or about July 5, 2024, Anne St. Pierre (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a recreational vehicle steel garage. The total amount of the contract was $119,175.00 and Complainant paid $107,258.00 to Respondent. The project was located at Complainant’s residential home in Prescott Valley, Arizona.
On or about September 1, 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 Jim Dimond. On October 1, 2025, Investigator Dimond conducted a jobsite inspection with both parties present.
On October 15, 2025, Investigator Dimond issued a Written Directive to Respondent 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, November 5, 2025.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Leaking between windows and siding, faulty installation, contractor has no proven solution.
Investigator’s Observation: The doors and windows on the steel building are leaking. The complainant performed a water test and the window leaked. Additionally, the complainant maintains that the garage door leaks at the bottom on the sides.
The respondent indicated that the windows and doors are not yet completely sealed. The building has not received the final approval yet from the town of Prescott Valley. The respondent is to correct the water intrusion complete the project in an appropriate manner.
. . . .
Complaint Item: 2 - Contracts lack minimum elements for a written contract per AZ Revised Statutes.
Investigator’s Observation: The signed contract does not comply with the following provisions of ARS 32-1158:
1- The respondent's license number is not present.
4- There is no approximate date for completion
9- No notice to the public of the right to file an ROC complaint.
The respondent is to correct the contracts used to conduct business in an appropriate manner and provide a voided blank copy to the investigator.
Violation letter sent.
. . . .
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Investigator Dimond was informed that some corrective work was performed. As such, a Compliance Inspection was performed on November 20, 2025, with both parties present. The relevant Compliance Findings were as follows:
Complaint Item: 1 - Leaking between windows and siding, faulty installation, contractor has no proven solution.
Compliance Observation: It appears that the overhead garage door has been corrected and is not leaking. It is reported that the windows did not leak but concerns remain as protection from water intrusion may be limited to caulk.
Channel was attached to the frames of the windows in what appears to be an improper installation.
Milgard windows declined to make a determination regarding whether the installation is warrantable without a claim.
The caulking at the top of the windows and doors are sporadically done and some of what is done, although only visible from a ladder, is poorly done.
I did find a detail for installation on metal buildings and that detail shows the caulking over windows and doors to go from the end of the head flashing to the first major (large) rib in the siding. Caulking all the way across does not appear to be required.
Some windows and doors are not caulked at all.
On 12/03/25, I spoke with Woody Lewis, Chief Building Official for Prescott Valley and he indicated that the building has not been finalized. He also indicated that a final inspection was scheduled but canceled by the complainants.
NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 2 - Contracts lack minimum elements for a written contract per AZ Revised Statutes.
Compliance Observation: A compliant contract was provided.
CORRECTED
On December 5, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Hearing Evidence
Investigator Dimond testified that Complaint Item one had multiple subparts and only a few of those subparts were left outstanding. Investigator Dimond testified to the Compliance Inspection, in that, there were no more leak concerns but there were still issues with the caulking and channel installation which could possibility void the warranty. Investigator Dimond further testified that he reached out to the window manufacturer, Milgard, but they would not give him an opinion on the installation of the windows and whether the warranty was voided.
Jeff Sanford, Respondent Owner, testified to his business and how they specialize in custom homes and metal building installations. Mr. Sanford explained how different it is to construct metal buildings versus wood installations. Mr. Sanford provided isometric wall detail from Western States Metal Roofing to show that the channels/window installation, on this project, was proper. Mr. Sanford admitted that he was “not proud” of the installation of the silicone caulking but that aesthetics should not take place over substance. Investigator Dimond disagreed and stated that function plus aesthetics, in regards to the caulking, both contribute to the workmanship standard.
Complainant and Matthew Evans, Complainant spouse, both testified that they were concerned with future monsoon seasons due to the caulking and installation of the windows. Mr. Evans testified that on November 26, 2025, the city inspector informed them that the steel garage structure was not ready. Investigator Dimond stated that a final inspection was scheduled but Complainant canceled it, and that final inspection did not happen.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 19, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 332321 was Active. Such prior License record also reflected that there were 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 means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, Respondent has provided ample evidence and testimony that the installation of the windows and channels were properly installed for this type of structure. Furthermore, Investigator Dimond testified the leakage was no longer a concern at the compliance inspection. However, Investigator testified to the caulking and how that did not meet workmanship standards. In addition, Mr. Sanford admitted that he was not pleased of the caulking installation. As such, the evidence established that Respondent’s work, to the caulking, was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
As a result, the evidence established that Respondent did not properly complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 No. ROC 332321 for a period of one day.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $50.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, March 23, 2026.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Lawrence J. Felder, Esq.
Resolvere Law PLLC
3101 N Central Ave Ste. 850
Phoenix, AZ 85012
[email redacted]
Anne St Pierre
3249 N Meadowlark Dr.
Prescott Valley, AZ 86314
[email redacted]
Jim Dimond
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff