ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-09483-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Dale Kater,

COMPLAINANT,

M & M Pool's and Tile Creations, LLC,

License No. ROC 355626,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-09483-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 16, 2026

APPEARANCES: Homeowners Dale Kater and Nancy Sanders appeared on their own behalf. Qualifying Party Jesus A. Camargo represented M & M Pool's and Tile Creations, LLC. Investigator Steven Avila appeared from the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”); Complainant Exhibits 1 through 9; Respondent Exhibits 1 through 3.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

M & M Pool's and Tile Creations, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 355626, CR-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in November 2024.

In July 2025, Dale Kater (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for patio travertine, drainage and turf installation at the residence for a contracted price of $15,001.00. The work began on August 14, 2025 and stopped on August 28, 2025. Complainant had not paid any money to Respondent.

On September 17, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) against Respondent from Complainant. The Complaint alleged poor work in that the work was alleged to have not been done according to the July 28, 2025 plans.

The Registrar assigned Complaint to Investigator Steven Avila (“Investigator”).

On October 14, 2025, Investigator conducted a jobsite inspection.

Both Complainant and Respondent were present at the jobsite inspection. Investigator reviewed the Complainant with the parties and took multiple photographs to document the alleged workmanship issues and resulting conditions of the project.

On October 22, 2025, Investigator issued a Written Directive (Directive) to Respondent indicating that several items required corrective action. The Directive provided a deadline for corrective action to be November 10, 2025.

On December 3, 3025, Investigator communicated to both parties information regarding a homeowner needing to allow access to a contractor to perform the directed corrective items. Investigator noted:

Access: In order to use the administrative process offered by the Registrar, a property owner must provide reasonable access to allow the contractor to fix their work as directed by the Registrar in a Written Directive. Complainants may not put any additional, unnecessary restrictions on the Respondent above and beyond the initial contract requirements agreed upon at the beginning of the project. Respondents are required to make repairs on items identified on any Written Directive, not otherwise restricted by local code or HOA limitations. Complainants must make access available to the Respondent to make the required repairs and failure to provide reasonable access may result in the Registrar dismissing the complaint.

Based on the “access” issue, on January 20, 2026, Investigator issue a second Directive to Respondent, which now called for a deadline of February 16, 2026 for the corrective action as follows:

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 - Drain not installed in accordance with the written plan.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the installed drain was not a hidden drain which was addressed in line item 4. Invoice also called for 33 feet of drain which is much longer than the installed visible drain. No signed change order was presented for the changes by the contractor at the time of the inspection. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

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: 4 - HO directed contractor not to use 2' visible plastic drain cover; Contractor quoted "hidden deck drain per linear foot"

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was an

exposed drain installed. Invoice does reflect that a hidden drain should have been installed. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the

appropriate means.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a)

Complaint Item: 5 - Drainage was installed incorrectly, and water drains into the pool and house foundation.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection two locations

between the installed drain and the pool were measured. Both location slope towards the pool rendering the drain ineffective in those areas and allowing water to flow directly into the pool. The installed drain flow into an area surrounded by pavers with no way for the water to drain away from the residence. Allegation is verified. Respondent Shall correct by the 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

On February 19, 2026, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of the applicable statutes:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) 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.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) 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.

Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar.

Respondent filed its Answer on February 23, 2026. Respondent indicated that it had come to the property on November 7, 2025 to address corrective work but needed 3 days and Complainant was not flexible to negotiate a time period for them to do the remaining work. Respondent further explained the site issues with the way the pool contractor had built the pool and the limited space for Respondent’s subsequent work. Respondent indicated that it had filed a mechanics lien.

The matter was not resolved informally between the parties.

At hearing, Investigator testified regarding the background of the Complaint, his findings, and the determinations set forth in the Written Directive. Investigator noted that there had been an ongoing discussions between the parties but that the issues had not been resolved.

At hearing, Complainant argued that the project, as installed, was not per the design plans and that, functionally, the drain was not appropriate as the area flooded when there was rain. Complainant argued that the parties had come to many informal agreements during the process but Respondent had not followed through and that their real concerns simply had not been addressed. Complainant argued that Respondent simply had not made things right and suggested that Respondent needed to have removed the installed travertine and reinstalled a correct drain per the plans. Complainant suggested they could come to some agreement where Respondent would “pick up” the materials and then Complainant would not owe Respondent money, or some variation thereof.

At hearing, Respondent argued that, based on the small yard and limited space available for the project, and for purposes of best drainage, the installation it had made was appropriate for functionality because a hidden drain would have resulted in more standing water from rains. Respondent argued that Complainant kicked him off the job on November 7, 2026, made threats, and would not allow Respondent to return. Respondent indicated that the August 28, 2025 invoice sent to Complainant reflected the work Respondent had completed, and that the lien would remain in place until Respondent was paid.

Since the time of the hearing, Complainant has not advised the Tribunal that the parties have resolved the matter informally.

Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public records and Respondent’s ROC License record on May 6, 2026. The public record indicates that Respondent’s record has only this one open case with the Registrar.

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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards.

The Directives mandated correction of the Investigator-determined workmanship issues. An appropriate period of time was given for the corrections, including the changed deadline in the second directive. However, the hearing record demonstrates that Complainant refused access to Respondent to perform the corrective work during the Directive period through kicking Respondent off the job, making threats, and not negotiating a time for Respondent to return and perform the corrective work during the Directive period.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is recommended that the Registrar dismiss Complainant’s Complaint and close Case 2025-09485.

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 Administrative Law Judge Decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the Administrative Law Judge 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, May 6, 2026.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

M & M Pool's and Tile Creations, LLC

[email redacted]

Dale Kater

[email redacted]

Steven Avila

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff