ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09362-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-24
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Theresa Lindstrom
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Outdoor Homes, LLC
License No. ROC 339578,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-09362-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 4, 2026
APPEARANCES: Theresa Lindstrom (Ms. Lindstrom) appeared on behalf of herself. Scott Knudson (Mr. Knudson) appeared on behalf of Outdoor Homes, LLC (Outdoor).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 17 and 19. Respondent’s Exhibit A.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On November 26, 2026, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar)
issued a Notice of hearing setting the above-entitled matter for hearing on January 12, 20256.
A hearing was held on February 4, 2025. At hearing, Ms. Lindstrom testified
on behalf of herself. Mr. Knudson testified on behalf of Outdoor. Jeremy Rosenthal, an investigator from the Registrar (Investigator Rosenthal), testified regarding his investigation of the complaint filed in this matter.
Outdoor holds license number 339578 issued by the
Outdoor’s qualifying party is Mr. Knudson.
A hearing was held on February 4, 2026.
On or about December 6, 2023, Ms. Lindstrom and Outdoor entered into a
residential construction contract for the amount of $54,599.50.
On or about March 24, 2024, Outdoor started work.
On or about August 1, 2025, Outdoor stopped work.
On or about September 13, 2025, Ms. Lindstrom filed a complaint with the
Registrar alleging poor workmanship and abandonment on the part of Outdoor.
On September 15, 2025, Ms. Lindstrom notified Mr. Knudson that she filed a
complaint with the Registrar. See Mr. Lindstrom’s Exhibit 19. Ms. Lindstrom also notified Mr. Knudson through the e-mail that Outdoor was not permitted at that time to enter her property. See id.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Rosenthal.
Investigator Rosenthal has worked for the Registrar as an investigator for one year. Prior to working for the Registrar, Investigator Rosenthal worked as a building inspector with one of the large local jurisdictions. Investigator Rosenthal is licensed as a B1 by the International Code Council. Investigator Rosenthal explained at hearing that a B1 is a whole home inspector and a plumbing inspector.
On October 8, 2025, Investigator Rosenthal conducted a job-site inspection.
On October 8, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive to Outdoor that
provided, in relevant part, 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 Friday, October 24, 2025.
RESTRICTIONS
You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside
the scope of your license.
If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or
is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any
corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring
other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your
license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Patio ceiling bowing/cracking, removed 7/10/25 and
not replaced
Investigator’s Observation: There was no drywall or other type of ceiling
cover as it had been removed prior to my arrival, so I was not able to see it
bowed or cracked, but I did see the metal roofing underlayment that had been
used for the roofing material had gaps and appeared to have been leaking at
one time. Respondent is to correctly install the ceiling by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and
workmanlike manner.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship
Complaint Item: 2 - Poor framing of structure causing both roof to bow
collecting water, and ceiling to bow/crack/repair attempted
Investigator’s Observation: There is no observable slope; code requires a
minimum of 1⁄4” per foot and the designs call for this same standard. There
SHOULD be 5” of slope which would be easily detectable to the naked eye with
no measurement tools needed. I also observed the span between the corner
posts to be beyond the max span allowed per IRC (which is 12’4” MAX with 2x8
with joists or rafters spaced 16” on center). This would have been observed and
required a correction by the local authority. Respondent is to add proper slope
per code and in compliance with the plans as approved by the local authority.
Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications
in any material respect that is prejudicial to another without consent of the
owner or the owner's duly authorized representative and without the consent of
the person entitled to have the particular construction project or operation
completed in accordance with such plans and specifications and code.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)
Complaint Item: 3 - Repeated poor workmanship/planning requiring many
components to need to be redone multiple times
Investigator’s Observation: The contractor used metal studs as horizontal
roof cross members. This gauge of metal stud is designed for vertical support
(as in wall construction) and is not allowed for a horizontal use. Additionally, I
observed multiple locations where wires were spliced, connected with wire nuts
and then wrapped with electrical tape. They were NOT enclosed in a junction
box which is a violation of National Electrical Code, 300.15 and International
Residential Code E3905.1 (2018). Another example of poor workmanship; the
bottom edge of many wood studs appears to be hacked, cut and trimmed,
apparently in an effort to allow for proper slope, but no slope would be needed
inside of the cover for the ceiling. Several of the wood studs were cut so short,
the contractor “sistered” two pieces of wood to the original wood truss to
extend it far enough to reach the cross member. I also observed that a wire was
terminated with a wire nut and electrical tape; unknown if it was live and just
not needed? Plus, the wire inside of the flexible metal conduit must be for wet
exposure, which is THHN or THWN type wire. The metal rafters have been
trimmed and do not run the length of the patio cover, which diminishes the
usefulness of any support or load it may offer. I observed an excessive amount
of A35 (90 degree angle plates or "clips") used to attach the wood to the metal
cross members, which is not correct. The A35 is a Simpson product designed to attach wood to wood. Also, the type of screw used to attach the A35 to the wood
is not correct. You must use a nail for shear resistance or specific Simpson
brand screws.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely
A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any
applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be
performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor
shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing
tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly
licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(B) Building Codes/Prof. Industry Standards
Complaint Item: 6 - No response to multiple emails, calls and texts as the
above have not been addressed
Investigator’s Observation: The last time any work was done on this
project was August 1st, 2025. Since then, the Respondent has not
communicated with the Complainant and it does not appear there was any
attempt to complete the job. The Respondent is to promptly begin work on and
complete this job per the contract.
Governing Rule: Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform after
submitting a bid on work without legal excuse for the abandonment or refusal.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
14. During the timeframe for compliance under the Directive, Ms. Lindstrom did not deny Outdoor access to her property.
15. On October 30, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Outdoor’s license alleging that Outdoor had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(2)(b), Ariz. Rev. Stat section 32-1154(A)(3) – Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A) and (B), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(22).
16. Outdoor filed a timely response to the Citation.
17. At hearing, Investigator Rosenthal testified consistently with his job-site inspection notes and the findings listed in the Directive. Investigator Rosenthal explained that he found that Outdoor departed from plans and specifications, without owner consent, because there were several sets of plans at the job-site inspection that had been stamped by the local authority in jurisdiction. Many of those items were in the drawings. Investigator Rosenthal found that the blueprints were not adhered to or added to the design of the structure.
18. Ms. Lindstrom explained that Outdoor performed poor work during the construction project. Ms. Lindstrom stated that Outdoor did not build the rafters from the roof and ceiling based upon plans that were submitted in Outdoor’s Exhibit A.
Ms. Lindstrom stated that Outdoor build from a second set of plans that were not submitted by Outdoor at the hearing.
19. At hearing, Mr. Knudson testified on behalf of Outdoor. Ms. Lindstrom viewed the Registrar’s website on the day that she filed the complaint to find Outdoor’s license number. Ms. Lindstrom discovered that Outdoor’s license had been suspended since June of 2025. At some time in September of 2025, Ms. Lindstrom reviewed Outdoor’s license record on the Registrar’s website and found that Outdoor’s license was suspended.
20. At hearing, Mr. Knudson could not recall the time period that Outdoor’s license was suspended in 2025, however, Ms. Knudson asserted that the suspension was not a long period of time. Mr. Knudson also explained that Outdoor passed all required inspections. Mr. Knudson stated that Ms. Lindstrom did not allow Respondent on her property.
21. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Ms. Lindstrom did not deny Respondent access to her property during the timeframe for compliance under the Directive.
22. Administrative notice is taken of Outdoor’s prior License record on February 24, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Outdoor’s License
No. 339578 was first issued on July 21, 2022, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that three complaints have resulted in discipline of Outdoor’s license and that there are two open complaints against Outdoor’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
sections 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Outdoor’s statutory
violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Outdoor violated
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
The Administrative Law Judge finds that Outdoor provided
insufficient evidence to rebut Investigator Rosenthal’s findings of poor workmanship.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Outdoor did not perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).
7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Outdoor did not perform
the work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards, which is a violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(B), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).
8. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Outdoor failed to comply with the Registrar’s Directive without valid justification, which is a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 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 License No. 339578 issued to Outdoor Homes, LLC, for five days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Outdoor to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Outdoor 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 Outdoor’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Outdoor, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1101(A)(7), unless Outdoor tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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 24, 2026.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Outdoor Homes LLC
[email redacted]
Theresa Lindstrom
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff