ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04709-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Shawn Wood,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Dewey Trail dba Dewey Trail,

License No. ROC 322167,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04709-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 18, 2025

APPEARANCES: Shawn Wood appeared on his own behalf. Cody Trail, Qualifying Party, appeared representing Respondent. Investigator Todd Anderson appeared on behalf of the ROC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Packet.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Dewey Trail dba Dewey Trial (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 322167, a KB-2 Dual Residential and Small Commercial license, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) in September 2018.

In April 2025, Complainant contracted with Respondent for Respondent to remove a curb, and grade, prepare, and pave with 1⁄2-inch mix, approximately 16,000 Sq.Ft driveway areas with labor and rental included.

On May 11, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) against Respondent from Complainant alleging both poor work and incomplete work, and damage to a gate with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Todd Anderson.

At a June 4, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Anderson reviewed the Complainant items and took multiple photographs to document the items.

On June 12, 2025, Investigator Anderson issued a Written Directive to Respondent, which 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 27th, 2025.

..................

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1A - poor workmanship not corrected. Grass growing through the asphalt along pony wall.

Investigator’s Observation: (This was added at the time of the Jobsite Inspection. Respondent agreed to include). Verified. The Property owner directed me to several areas along both the interior and exterior pony walls of the residence where grass managed to break through the asphalt. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 1B - poor workmanship not corrected. Left debris in front of neighbor’s house.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed a pile of excess building material located at the front of the neighbor’s property. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 2 - pavement sloping to building structures allowing water to cause damage

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed sloping issues of the asphalt drive in front of both the guest house and shop. The grade was sloping back towards both structures thus creating negative drainage which could result in possible flooding issues. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 3 - irrigation ditch at drive way not completed

Investigator’s Observation: This work was part of a verbal change order, so I was unable to determine the agreed upon scope of work; however, the work on and around the irrigation ditch appeared unfinished and not to Industry Standards. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 4 - some high areas were ground down and then never finished or resurfaced, multiple areas

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed numerous areas throughout the driveway which had been milled and left exposed. Uncovered millings are susceptible to the damaging effects of water. This can lead to erosion, washout, and weakening of the base layer. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 7 - block wall damaged and not repaired

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Contractor had agreed that he had damaged the section of the pony wall located in proximity to the garage and that he had made repairs; however, those repairs appeared unfinished and did not meet Industry Standards. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 8 - gate damaged and not repaired correctly

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Property Owner directed me to the track for the metal gate located at the front of the residence. The Contractor had admitted to damaging the tract for the gate and had made repairs; however, the tract was still loose and not properly secured to the concrete below. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 9 - pavement in front of shop was not graded down to be level with concrete slab and dirt lot

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The asphalt driveway was at least 2-3” higher than the shop creating a possible tripping hazard and not allowing for positive drainage away from the building. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 10 - tie in to street was done sloppy, then grinned out and reinstalled looks terrible

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The area pointed out to me at the Jobsite Inspection was approximately 2’ wide and ran the entire length of the property. According to both parties, it was the result of a repair done by the Contractor to correct a poorly done transition from the driveway to the street. I observed an inconsistent finish with raveling edges. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 11 - water main at street was covered then uncovered and fixed poorly

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The replacement asphalt around the water main had a rough, unfinished appearance which did not match the surrounding areas. This did not meet Industry Standards. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 12 - pavement is uneven and not compacted smooth, still has boot prints in it

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The overall appearance of the asphalt finish throughout the driveway was uneven and inconsistent. Did not meet Industry Standards. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 14 - Sink hole in Asphalt in side yard

Investigator’s Observation: (This was added at the time of the Jobsite Inspection. Respondent agreed to include). Verified. I observed an approximately 6” diameter sink hole in the asphalt located just south of the Guest House and adjacent to a palm tree. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall

perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION:

Complaint Item: 5 - tie in to other pavement areas not complete to the curb stands off 2 foot

Investigator’s Observation: Insufficient Evidence. This was not specified in the contract and Contractor stated that there was no verbal agreement either.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Complaint Item: 6 - septic leach pit access covered

Investigator’s Observation: Insufficient Evidence. Unable to verify without conducting destructive testing.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Complaint Item: 13 - area where excess dirt was to be dumped, graded andcompacted. only got dumped

Investigator’s Observation: Insufficient Evidence. This was not part of the original contract and there was a dispute over what was to be done.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Following the expiration date for the Written Directive, Investigator Anderson ascertained that Respondent had not performed corrective work. Thereafter, Investigator Anderson forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

On July 15, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

At hearing, Investigator Anderson consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes and the Written Directive; he also referenced some of the photographs taken at the Jobsite Inspection which depicted deficiencies in Respondent’s work. Investigator Anderson testified that the directed work did not meet minimum workmanship standards.

Complainant concurred with Investigator Anderson’s testimony and added some additional background. Complainant noted that, on the first day of the work, Respondent’s machinery broke down and some mix therein had to simply be dumped on site so that the equipment would be able to be fixed. Complainant indicated that some areas were mounded and some were either not graded or not filled in to an appropriate grade level. Complainant further noted that the remaining final grade on the project resulted in poor drainage and flooding, and opined that a drainage area would not solve the flooding issues.

Complainant testified that the original quote had been based on Respondent having used GOOGLE earth imaging but that the project area has to be adjusted once Respondent was on the site. Regarding monies, Complainant indicated that the parties had agreed on an additional $3,000.00 for adding another area to the project and, subsequently, Respondent had needed $7,500.00 for more materials to come in to finish the work.

Respondent indicated that this was only an overlay job and was not a replacement project, which was why he had only cut out the “high” areas.” Respondent acknowledged that Complainant had paid for the additional materials over the phone, but argued that Complainant had not paid for the driver’s extra costs. Respondent offered to install drainage to prevent flooding and, further gave monetary options to resolve the matter.

Since the date of the hearing, Complainant has not notified the Tribunal that the parties were able to informally resolve the matter.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC License record on October 20, 2025. Respondent’s License record also reflects that this Complaint is the only the open complaint, and shows discipline in two other now closed complaint.

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 Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent performed no corrective work during the period of the Written Directive despite that directed work not meeting minimum workmanship standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar, without valid justification, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 322167 for a period of five (5) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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, October 22, 2025.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Todd Anderson

[email redacted]

Shawn Wood

[email redacted]

Dewey Trail

DBA: Dewey Trail

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff