ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-03335-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Karen A. Edgell,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

AZ Turf & More, LLC

License No. ROC 314645,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-03335-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 8, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Karen Edgell appeared on her own behalf. Tracy Tingue appeared on behalf of Respondent AZ Turf & More, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Patricia Schuette appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

AZ Turf & More, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 314645 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

In or about June 2024, Karen Edgell (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform backyard landscaping at Complainant’s home, including installing turf, travertine, a pergola, and a built-in barbeque island. The contract price was $32,100.00. Complainant has paid Respondent in full.

On or about April 2, 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 Patricia Schuette. After an April 29, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Schuette issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated May 13, 2025, 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 June 6, 2025.

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

**Respondent to provide legible copy of a written contract per ARS §32-1158**

Complaint Item: 1 - The grade goes in the wrong direction, leaving all the

water to pile up in the corner of the outdoor kitchen.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The slope from the

peninsula/kitchen is mostly level and not properly sloped to allow water to flow away from pool and peninsula/kitchen. Respondent agreed that grading did not allow for water to flow away and agreed to corrections prior to 30 minute flood testing was completed. Measurements with level showed minimal fall where there was any. Most areas are flat. Water was ponding after flooding the means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 2 - The wiring on Pergola has lights coming on and off at

weird times.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The patio light/fan was provided

by complainant and installed by Respondent. The light and fan is operational and appears to be wired correctly. It might be related to some kind of programing or other manufacturing related issue.

On July 14, 2025, Investigator Schuette issued an Amended Written Directive that extended the compliance deadline to July 25, 2025.

After the July 25, 2025 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Complainant contacted Investigator Schuette to advise that Respondent had performed corrective work, however, it was unsatisfactory.

On August 15, 2025, Investigator Schuette conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection at which both parties were present. Investigator Schuette’s Compliance Notes indicate the following:

Complaint Item: 1 - The grade goes in the wrong direction, leaving all the water to pile up in the corner of the outdoor kitchen.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. The slope from the peninsula/kitchen is mostly level and not properly sloped to allow water to flow away from pool and peninsula/kitchen. Respondent agreed that grading did not allow for water to flow away and agreed to corrections prior to 30 minute flood testing was completed. Measurements with level showed minimal fall where there was any. Most areas are flat. Water was ponding after flooding the area. Respondent to obtain proper slop and drainage within appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Corrections were made to the slope and it appears that the drainage is now proper however, there are multiple locations where sand is not sufficient in between pavers, large gaps between perimeter island and pavers exist, and the mini fridge no longer can be removed due to the height change on the pavers. The corrective action taken by the Respondent created new workmanship issues.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Investigator Schuette forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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 timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Schuette testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directives and the Compliance Notes. Investigator Schutte testified that the drainage issues have been rectified by Respondent, however, in so doing, Respondent changed the elevation of the pavers resulting in the inability to remove the refrigerator. Investigator Schuette testified that Respondent has made offers to make additional repairs, however, those offers were outside of the period of the Written Directives, and after the expiration of the deadline in the Amended Written Directive, Complainant was under no obligation to allow Respondent any further opportunity to make corrections.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Schuette’s testimony and also testified that she made Respondent’s workers aware at the time they were performing the corrective work, that there was an issue with the refrigerator, and they in turn notified Respondent. Complainant asserted that despite such knowledge, Respondent continued with the work and did nothing to rectify the situation. Complainant testified that she will no longer allow Respondent on her property.

Tracy Tingue, Respondent’s owner, testified that the grading has been corrected and that he provided a “multitude” of opportunities to perform the repair to the refrigerator opening, however, Complainant would not allow Respondent to perform the work. However, Respondent provided no evidence, as an affirmative defense, that Complainant denied access during the period of the Written Directives, and Investigator Schuette confirmed during her testimony that Complainant did, in fact, allow Respondent access during the entire period of the extended Written Directive period. Mr. Tingue asserted that he only became aware of the issue with the opening for the refrigerator at the time of the Compliance Inspection.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 15, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 314645 was first issued on July 25, 2017, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and 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 is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence established that portions of Respondent’s work were not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that although Respondent corrected the drainage issue, such work resulted in further workmanship issues, specifically, “multiple locations where sand is not sufficient in between pavers, large gaps between perimeter island and pavers exist, and the mini fridge no longer can be removed due to the height change on the pavers.” Consequently, Respondent did not appropriately complete the corrective work following the Written Directives being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 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 Number 314645 for a period of three (3) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) 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 A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent 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, January 16, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Patricia Schuette

[email redacted]

Karen A Edgell

[email redacted]

AZ Turf & More, LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff