ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2025A-04306-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Aaron Neil Boyd,

COMPLAINANT

Oasis of the Valley Pools and Spas LLC,

License No. ROC 336884,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-04306-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 5, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Dee Dee Boyd

Aaron Boyd

Respondent: Casey Cox

Registrar of Contractors: John Peru, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Oasis of the Valley Pools and Spas, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 336884 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on March 1, 2022.

On or about September 16, 2023, Dee Dee and Aaron Boyd (Complainants) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new pool design and build.

On or about April 30, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Peru, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on May 14, 2025, scheduling the inspection for June 3, 2025.

Investigator Peru conducted the jobsite inspection on June 3, 2025, and Respondent was present. Following the inspection, Investigator Peru issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on June 11, 2025 that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item: 2 - Tile design failing: grout mixture never stays in place, tiles aren't aligned and are uneven in places

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. At the time of this inspection, I observed several area where the grout was falling out (low grout), and multiple grout joints that were inconsistent/not uniform in width /alignment up to a 1/4” differential. The respondent stated that the correct grout specified for the Traverstone will be confirmed, and that the instructions to apply the product will be followed per manufacturer's specs. The respondent confirmed that the grout joints throughout the Pool Decking were inconsistent in width/ and alignment. The respondent shall correct by appropriate means. REF: (JSI PICS).

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.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Peru of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on July 2, 2025.

On July 7, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Peru that no corrective work had been performed on the project.

On July 9, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with 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 submitted an Answer to the Citation on July 14, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted it had fixed the grout issue three times prior to the filed complaint and did not realize the compliance deadline until after the deadline had past.

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

On July 25, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for September 5, 2025.

Investigator Peru testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, and the Citation. He testified that the tile product was new on the market and Respondent had fixed the grout three times prior to the inspection. Investigator Peru further testified that he had some communication with both parties during the compliance period and did not believe Respondent was directly avoiding responsibility by missing the compliance period deadline; however, no formal request for extension was received.

Complainant testified that the tile grout had been corrected three times prior to their filed complaint. The first repair used silicon sand, the second used silicon mixed with grout, and on the third repair Complainant was told “it should be good.”

Respondent testified that the improper width was caused by pavers moving due to the grout issue, noting that without grout the pavers will shift. Respondent further testified that the tile used on Complainant’s project was a new porcelain product that was experiencing grout issues. The initial tile and grout installation was done with silicon sand. At each repair, Respondent consulted with the manufacturer to determine the best solution. Each time a repair was made, a different grout product was used per the manufacturer’s recommendation. At the time of the hearing, there was another new grout product the manufacturer recommended for use that was having success, which Respondent proposed to use to fix the issue. Regarding the missed compliance period deadline, Respondent stated it was an honest mistake due to scheduling conflicts with its initial contractor.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 5, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 336884 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and one resolved/settled complaint 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. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent performed all work in accordance with A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A). Perfection is not expected; thus, a contractor’s license should not be disciplined without having an opportunity to correct deficiencies. In the instant matter, Complainant filed a complaint alleging six deficiencies. Investigator Peru determined that five of the complaint items were issues related to work performed by contractors other than Respondent, were within industry standards, or were unsupported. Investigator Peru verified one complaint item for low grout and multiple grout joints that were inconsistent/not uniform in width and alignment. Investigator Peru and Respondent testified that the tile used was a new-to-market product. Respondent credibly testified that, because it was new, the grout issues were unexpected and previously unknown. However, Respondent promptly addressed the issue each time it occurred and appropriately consulted with the manufacturer to determine the best solution. The evidence supports that the cause of the complaint item was not poor workmanship on the part of Respondent.

Despite not finding of a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) due to product deficiency, Respondent was still responsible to Complainant to correct the deficiency. The preponderance of the evidence 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 for one day Respondent’s License No. 336884.

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, September 25, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

John Peru

[email redacted]

Aaron Neil Boyd

[email redacted]

Oasis of the Valley Pools and Spas LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff