ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04737-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ted Swofford,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Green Way Landscape, Inc.,

License No. ROC 278759,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04737-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 28, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Ted Swofford appeared on behalf of Del Webb at Rancho Del Lago. Julian Morales appeared on behalf of Respondent Green Way Landscape, Inc. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Cooke appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Agency Record; Respondent Green Way Landscape, Inc.’s Exhibits A6.1, A6.2, A6.3, A11, and A13

FINDINGS OF FACT

Green Way Landscape, Inc. (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 278759 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Julian Morales is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Officer.

In or about August 2024, Respondent contracted with the community association, Del Webb at Rancho Del Lago, to perform improvements to the community’s bocce ball courts. The contract price was $22,461.39. There was a subsequent change order in the amount of $5,448. 96. Respondent has been paid in full by the community association. Ted Swofford (“Complainant”) is the President of the homeowner’s association’s Board and its designated representative.

On or about May 12, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from the community association alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator David Cooke. After a June 24, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Cooke issued a Written Directive to Respondent, dated June 26, 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 Tuesday, July 15, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Turf is pulling and rippling Boards are falling off Court

is not flat

Investigator’s Observation: At the jobsite inspection, the complainant

showed multiple areas where the turf had began to wrinkle. The respondent acknowledged the wrinkles and suggested a solution. The complainant then showed areas where the composite boards were pulling away from the concrete border. Evidence of adhesive was present on the concrete border and on the back of the composite boards. The complainant and respondent both agreed that the flatness of the courts had been rectified prior to the jobsite inspection. The respondent shall identify and correct the deficient items and any items in similarity by appropriate means.

Following the expiration of the Written Directive, Investigator Cooke ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive. Thereafter, Investigator Cooke 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), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Cooke testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Cooke testified that Respondent’s contract did not contain three legally required terms, specifically, the date of the contract, the date of completion, and the advisement regarding the right to file a complaint with the Registrar.

Investigator Cooke testified that Respondent did not request an extension of time in which to comply with the Written Directive.

Investigator Cooke testified that Respondent did not obtain a waiver regarding the use of glue for the boards rather than bolts. Investigator Cooke further testified that when Respondent agreed to glue the boards to the exiting concrete, Respondent accepted the surface upon which it performed its work and if there was an issue with that surface, Respondent should have notified Complainant that the substrate needed to be corrected and incorporated such into the contract, or declined to contract to work on the project.

The Registrar’s substantive policy statement 2017.01 sets out the following pertinent information:

Acceptance of the Surface

As a general principle in construction, a subcontractor who performs work on top of a surface prepared by another accepts the surface. The subcontractor should have inspected the surface for any flaws or defects that would affect the work he proposes before performing the work. If he found the surface to be unacceptable, he should have called any defects to the owner’s or general contractor’s attention so that the owner can choose whether to pay for the defective surface to be corrected or if the owner is not willing to pay to correct the surface, the contractor may obtain an explicit warranty disclaimer.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Cooke’s testimony. Complainant testified that the parties’ contract specified that Respondent was to “[r]epair existing concrete curbs as need” and that Respondent agreed to re-use the existing boards and remove the glue. Because Respondent installed 3/8 inch boards rather than 3/4 inch boards, many of the boards broke. Complainant testified that he requested Respondent to use adhesive in addition to bolts to ensure that the boards were secured properly.

Complainant testified that the boards began to “fall off.” Respondent attempted repairs under its warranty, prior to the filing of the Complaint, however, the repairs were ineffective and the boards continued to “fall off.” Thereafter, Respondent requested that it be paid additional monies to replace the existing boards with thicker boards. It was the association’s position that Respondent should have used thicker boards in the first place. Respondent offered to split the cost of replacing the boards with the association, however, because the change order had been executed and specified, “[i]nstallation of new synthetic boards 572 linear feet including labor and materials,” the association decided to have another contractor perform the repair after the expiration of the Written Directive.

Complainant confirmed that the issue with the turf has been rectified by Respondent.

Mr. Morales testified that when he contracted for the work, he could not see that there was an issue with the concrete under the boards. Mr. Morales alleged that while Respondent was performing its work, Complainant told Respondent not to use bolts, but instead, to use glue for the boards. Mr. Morales testified that adhesive is generally used for this purpose and is standard in the industry.

Mr. Morales testified that he sent his crew multiple times to repair the issues with the boards, however, the boards continued to “come off.” Mr. Morales determined that the “concrete was bad” and that the problem was not with the glue. Mr. Morales asserted that the few times he sent crews to perform corrective work, such work was under the warranty, however, he “did not think it was fair” to continue to perform warranty work because Complainant had requested that glue be used rather than bolts. Consequently, Mr. Morales “wanted to charge more.” Mr. Morales testified that the association “wanted it re-done for free.” Mr. Morales contended that the issue was with the concrete, not Respondent’s workmanship.

Mr. Morales testified that Respondent did not comply with the Written Directive because it rained for two weeks and Respondent was unable to perform the corrective work within the timeframe set forth in the Written Directive due to weather and a personal issue. Mr. Morales acknowledged that he did not request an extension to the deadline in the Written Directive.

Mr. Morales testified that he has rectified the issue with his contract documents. Investigator Cooke did not indicate during his testimony that the Registrar has received documentation of compliance with the requirements for written contracts.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 30, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 278759 was first issued on May 11, 2012, 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 Respondent’s work was 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 Respondent’s contract did not contain all of the statutorily required elements. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and acknowledged such, and further acknowledged that it did not request an extension for compliance. Moreover, Respondent failed to establish valid justification for such failure. Respondent failed to establish that it rained each and every day of the Written Directive period, and regarding Mr. Morales’ personal issues, Mr. Morales indicated that he had sent his crews to the jobsite multiple times. As such, Mr. Morales’ presence was not necessary for the required corrective work to be accomplished. 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 278759 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.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine (9) terms required by A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) within thirty (30) days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, February 9, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Ted Swofford

[email redacted]

Green Way Landscape, Inc.

[email redacted]

David Cooke

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff