ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2025A-01926-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Elise Seaman,

COMPLAINANT,

D.S. Welding Services, LLC

License No. ROC 342103,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-01926-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 31, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Elise Seaman appeared on her own behalf. David Smith appeared on behalf of Respondent D.S. Welding Services, LLC. Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Shaquira Adebule appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ Exhibits 1 through 11

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar)” issued License Number 342103 to D.S. Welding Services, LLC (“Respondent”).

On or about February 27, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Elise Seaman (“Complainant”) alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to Respondent’s contracted scope of work. Respondent’s scope of work pursuant to the terms of the parties’ contract, as it relates to the instant matter, included construction and installation of 126 feet of custom wrought iron fencing.

As a result of the Complaint, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. An administrative hearing was held. In the September 17, 2025 Decision, Administrative Law Judge Nedra-Su Kawasaki considered Respondent’s arguments and concluded that Respondent violated both of the charged provisions of this State’s contracting laws.

On October 6, 2025, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order accepting the September 17, 2025 Decision and imposing a three-day suspension, as well as a $500.00 civil penalty. The effective date of that Order was November 15, 2025. Respondent did not appeal the Final Administrative Decision and Order.

Complainant thereafter filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“the Fund”) to recover the cost of performing the corrective work. As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different licensed contractors that Complainant had received to perform the repairs to the project.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s actual damages were $7,110.00. Respondent requested a hearing, believing the award was too high. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative award. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on March 31, 2026.

Hearing Evidence

The Written Directive from the Registrar specified that:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). . . .

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Posts not set the correct distance apart causing

some of the panels to not fit and extra add-on pieces to be needed.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are several locations where

pieces were welded in to bridge gaps. The pieces are not aligned or

aesthetically pleasing. Respondent to identify areas and correct within

appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 2 - Incomplete welds-only welded on the top and one

side on almost all panels.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are several locations where

the weld is not complete. This is leaving exposed edges susceptible to

rust. Respondent to identify locations and correct within appropriate

means.

Complaint Item: 3 - The connection from the panel to my house on the

right side is crooked.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The return panel to the house on

the West side is installed out of square. There is also spray paint on the

siding from the painting. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 4 - The panel connected to the gate on right side of

house screwed into my paver.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The return to the house on the

West side of the home is bolted into a paver. This is not properly secured.

Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5 - Contractor agreed to come back and set post in

concrete for the gate panel and did not.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. This is same complaint as item 4.

The side return with gate on the West side is not properly secured.

Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 6 - 2nd panel on right side has add on piece due to

posts being set too far apart and weld is crooked.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. This is a duplication to item 1.

Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 7 - Contractor agreed to come back and fix incomplete

welds and used caulking to fix on panels 5, 8, 9, 10, 14 & 15.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There appears to be a caulking

applied at some of the joints that were not welded. Respondent to identify

areas and correct within appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 8 - 10th panel along back side of property has an added

piece due to posts being incorrectly placed.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplication to item 1. Respondent

to correct within appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 9 - 11th panel has an added piece due to posts being

incorrectly placed Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplication to

item 1. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 10 - On last panel next to block wall there is an added

piece that was welded on crooked.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplication to item 1. Respondent

to correct within appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 11 - The panel on the left side of house the connection

to the house is not secure and caulking was used.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The return to house on the East

side is not installed square and does appear to have caulking. The section

does not appear to be secured properly. Respondent to correct within

appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 12 - Contractor agreed to replace 2 panels due to

piecework-4 and 13, but 11, 10 and 2 also have piecework.

Investigator’s Observation: Partial duplication to item 1. These are

sections where small pieces were welded on and not aesthetically

pleasing and not flush with existing rail. Respondent to correct within

appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 13 - Incomplete paint on the entire fence. In some areas

specifically on the back side, there is no paint at all.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are multiple locations where

there is thin paint, paint runs, and no paint with some rusting starting to

appear. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 14 - Contractor did not sand any welds before painting.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. It does not appear that any welds

were sanded prior to painting. Respondent to correct within appropriate

means.

Complaint Item: 15 - On small gate between house and shed the

connection between the gate and house was not trimmed down and is

sticking out.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is a small piece that

protrudes out about an inch or more. This could create a safety issue.

Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

At the Compliance Inspection, it was determined that although Respondent attempted to remedy the delineated items of deficiency, none of the delineated items of deficiency were remedied, and in fact, new issues were created due to Respondent’s corrective actions.

Shaquira Adebule, Legal Assistant II and Claims Reviewer for the Fund, testified that she reviewed the Complaint, Written Directive, Compliance Jobsite findings, the September 17, 2025 Decision regarding the underlying Complaint, the parties’ contract, the payments made by Complainant, the letter from Respondent’s bonding company, the deed to the property, the county assessor’s records, and bids submitted by Complainant, in determining that Complainant was eligible to file a claim with the Fund and in calculating Complainant’s actual damages.

Ms. Adebule determined upon her review, that Complainant owned and occupied the home when she entered into the contract with Respondent, when she paid Respondent, and when the work was performed by Respondent.

Ms. Adebule testified that the Registrar requires a complainant to file a claim with a respondent’s bonding company as a prerequisite to obtaining a payout from the Fund. Complainant did so and the claim was denied.

Ms. Adebule testified that her calculations took into account the contract price of $5,075.00 and the payments made toward the contract price in the amount of $5,075.00, and concluded that there was no remaining balance on the contract.

Complainant submitted two estimates for repairs of the project to the Fund. The bid from A & A Fence Company, Inc. (“A & A”) was in the amount of $7,110.00. The bid from Regal Fence, LLC was in the amount of $10,946.00. Ms. Adebule concluded that the lowest bid of $7,110.00 for the repair of the project was appropriate. However, she referred the bids to the investigator who investigated the underlying Complaint, Patricia Schuette, to verify if the bids were acceptable and in line with the scope of work contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Schuette informed Ms. Adebule via email of the following: “Both of the bids look appropriate but not sure why the second one is so much higher. The other thing that I thought was odd was that neither of them itemized a demo of the original work done by the Respondent.”

Given Investigator Schuette’s feedback, Ms. Adebule utilized the low bid amount of $7,110.00, and recommended a payout from the Fund to Complainant in the amount of $7,110.00.

Ms. Adebule explained that both bids were appropriate because they reflected what was required to remediate the deficiencies, and both contractors felt that a complete replacement was necessary. Ms. Adebule testified that “if work is so defective, a complete redo is appropriate.” Ms. Adebule further explained that repair work frequently costs more than the original cost, and that because Respondent’s work was performed almost two years ago, costs could have increased since that time. Moreover, both bids could have been higher because neither included demolition. Also, the bids were obtained in early July 2025, and because they are several months old, the costs could currently be higher.

David Smith, Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Member, asserted that Complainant’s award from the Fund should be limited to what is necessary to repair the “targeted deficiencies” set forth in the Written Directive. Mr. Smith testified that he obtained a bid to paint the fence in the amount of $1,200.00, with an additional $500.00 for paint materials and $200.00 for masking. Mr. Smith estimated that a full day of welding repairs at a rate of $150.00 per hour, would cost an additional $1,200.00. Based on the amounts proffered by Mr. Smith, he contended that Complainant should receive an award in the amount of $3,100.00.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

A.R.S. § 32-1132(A) provides that “[t]he residential contractors' recovery fund is established, to be administered by the registrar, for the benefit of claimants that are damaged by an act, representation, transaction or conduct of a residential contractor that is licensed pursuant to this chapter and that is in violation of this chapter or the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter.” The Registrar’s final decision in the underlying workmanship case giving rise to the instant matter establishes that Respondent’s work violated the sections of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) that were charged in the Citation.

For the purposes of an award under A.R.S. § 32-1132(A), A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B) provides as follows:

An award from the residential contractors' recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor's violation. Actual damages:

May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.

Must be established by bids supplied by or the value of work performed by a person that is licensed pursuant to this chapter if the person is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter.

In this case, Respondent requested a hearing challenging the Fund payout, and consequently, Respondent bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed award is improper or contrary to law.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

After review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that Respondent has not sustained its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed award is improper or contrary to law. Complainant is eligible for an award from the Fund and the award proposed by the Fund accurately reflects Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $7,110.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, the Fund shall pay $7,110.00 to Complainant Elise Seaman.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under A.R.S. § 32-1139(B), the Registrar shall charge $7,110.00, plus interest at a rate of ten percent a year, to Respondent D.S. Welding Services, LLC’s License Number 342103.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, April 8, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

D.S. Welding Services, LLC

[email redacted]

Elise Seaman

[email redacted]

Mona Baskin

Office of the Attorney General

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff