ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-13388-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-06-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Sally Hanciles,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Dream House Construction & Renovations LLC,

License No. ROC 342522,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-13388-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 19, 2026

APPEARANCES: Investigator Patricia Schuette on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant Sally Hanciles on behalf of herself. Christopher Quick, Qualifying Party, on behalf of Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the hearing packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Dream House Construction & Renovations LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 342522 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about June 6, 2025 (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, kitchen and pantry cabinet installation.

On or about December 26, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work and abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Patricia Schuette.

Following a jobsite inspection on February 11, 2026, at which Respondent was not present, Investigator Schuette compiled her Jobsite Inspection Notes that provided as follows:

Jobsite General Notes:

Complaint Item: 1 - Kitchen cabinets not leveled, incorrectly spaced, crooked, cabinet doors not aligned, hardware crooked and coming off

Investigator’s Observation: Partially verified. The cabinets out of level was corrected by complainant. There are multiple doors, drawers, and false fronts that are not installed square, level, plumb and even. Numerous handles and knobs are not installed level on door or drawers. One knob has fallen off.

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.

Complaint Item: 2 - Pantry Cabinets are missing pull out sliding drawers on all top and bottom

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Per text message thread in confirmation, the kitchen pantry cabinets are to have pull out drawers instead of shelves. Currently shelves are installed.

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.

Complaint Item: 3 - Did not receive Kitchen window but paid for the window to be ordered

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Currently there are two windows over the new location of kitchen sink. These windows were to be removed and new window installed and centered over sink. Windows have not been pulled and replaced to include corollary corrections.

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)

Complaint Item: 4 - Started patio door demo and left it unfinished without having permit submission

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Permit was not obtained by Respondent and patio door was not completed per contractual agreement.

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)

Complaint Item: 5 - Did not move Hood at all, left in the wrong position but made me pay for it

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Hood vent has not been relocated/turned to position agreed upon. It appears that the duct/shroud does not need to be moved only base.

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)

Complaint Item: 6 - Kitchen moldings are missing on the sides, floor, toe kick, corners

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are several pieces of scribe and toe kick missing.

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)

Because Respondent’s license was revoked as of January 20, 2026, for disciplinary reasons in an unrelated case, Investigator Schuette did not issue a Written Directive and forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

The Registrar issued a Citation on February 13, 2026, against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

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

The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on May 19, 2026. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. An April 8, 2026, order 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 May 19, 2026.

Investigator Schuette testified consistently with the findings contained in the Jobsite Inspection Report. Namely, Investigator Schuette testified as to Respondent abandoning work under the contract and that she observed the cabinets installed in the kitchen were not level, were incorrectly spaced and/or were missing pull out drawers.

Complainant agreed with Investigator’s Schuette’s testimony. She also testified that Respondent did not communicate with Complainant during the project.

Mr. Quick testified that Complainant made Respondent re-install and move around cabinets on at least two separate occasions just because she would be unsatisfied with the appearance of the installation each time. Mr. Quick elaborated that by changing the install layout, Complainant drove up project cost for Respondent.

In addition, Mr. Quick testified that he negotiated in earnest with Complainant’s husband after Complainant was unsatisfied with Respondent’s team of design engineers and installers to make things work. However, Complainant hired her own team of design engineers and installers, driving Respondent out of work altogether. As such, Mr. Quick contended Complainant changed the scope of work such that Respondent was short paid by about $10,000.00 and therefore the project was no longer financially feasible.

Notwithstanding the above, Complainant denied the allegation and presented her own narrative. Namely, Complainant was forced to hire design engineers and installers only after Respondent became unresponsive and had already abandoned the project. The Administrative Law Judge finds Complainant’s testimony in this regard to be more credible and adopts it as fact.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 19, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 342522 was first issued on January 6, 2023, and was revoked on January 20, 2026. Such prior License record also reflects that there was one open complaint, two resolved/settled complaints, and six prior complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of her right to prosecute her complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

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 evidence established that Respondent submitted a bid for Complainant’s project and did not perform the work in the bid. Accordingly, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the contract and failed to complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

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. 342522 for a period of five days.

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, June 8, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Patricia Schuette

[email redacted]

Dream House Construction & Renovations LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Sally Hanciles

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff