ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08820-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Tyson Cahoon,

COMPLAINANT

Troy & Sons Construction LLC

DBA: Septic Medic,

License No. ROC 309821,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-08820-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 28, 2026

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Tyson Cahoon

Respondent: Daniel Nelson

Registrar of Contractors: John Chester, 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

Troy & Sons Construction, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 309821 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on November 28, 2016.

On or about December 31, 2024, Tyson Cahoon (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent to, among other things, abandon existing septic tank and install a new septic system.

On or about August 29, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Chester, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on September 9, 2025, scheduling the inspection for October 9, 2025.

Investigator Chester conducted the jobsite inspection on October 9, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Chester issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on October 14, 2025, that provided as follows:

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

Complaint Item 1: - Apply & pay for abandonment permit, not done

Investigator’s Observation: No work was started by the respondent, Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions

Complaint Item 2: - Apply & pay for phase 1 permit (soil testing), not done

Complaint Item 3: - Apply & pay for phase 2 permit, not done

Complaint Item 4: - supply and install one 1500 polly septic tank, not done

Complaint Item 5: - supply and install effluent filter, not done

Complaint Item 6: - supply and install two 24" risers with lids, not done

Complaint Item 7: - install one seepage pit approx. 5'X34' (pending soils testing report/county requirements), not done

Complaint Item 8: - abandon existing septic tank & connect new septic to home, not done

Complaint Item 9: - backfill system once installed (all soil spoils to stay onsite), not done

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Chester of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 31, 2025.

On November 12, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Chester that no corrective work had been performed on the project.

On November 13, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on November 26, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that Complainant had paid for a new septic system installation; however, after obtaining a permit from the county, it was determined there was not enough space for the new system. On Respondent’s advice Complainant worked with an engineer regarding the issue. Respondent had asked Complainant multiple times for a different location on the property to install the new system but had been unsuccessful.

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

On December 16, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for January 28, 2026.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on January 28, 2026.

Investigator Chester testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, the Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, because Respondent did not attend the jobsite inspection, Investigator Chester could not obtain further information regarding the phase 2 permit and status thereof. However, if Respondent was unable to complete the project, then Respondent was obligated to refund Complainant’s payment.

Complainant testified that he called the county regarding the permit Respondent had obtained and was advised that the permit was not valid. The county explained that a hold had been placed on the permit because the septic system could not be installed at the requested location and further advised Complainant he needed to work with an engineer. Thereafter, Complainant hired an engineer who was able to obtain a valid permit with the correct specialized septic system. Complainant had also been in contact with a separate septic company able to install the new system. Complainant had to reapply for all permitting. Finally, Complainant testified that communication with Respondent stopped because Respondent refused to reply to any text messages or phone calls.

Respondent acknowledged that Complainant paid the full $23,000.00 charge up front. Mr. Nelson testified that Respondent went through a lot of effort to obtain a permit due to the limitations on the property, and Respondent had advised Complainant he would need to work with an engineer. Mr. Nelson testified that Respondent had advised Complainant that it would not be possible to move forward with the conventional septic system Respondent had proposed. Mr. Nelson agreed with the County that the permit should have been revoked, because “there was no way we should have put the system where they gave us the permit to do so.” Mr. Nelson further testified that he was waiting for an engineer to be hired so he could rebid the project, and at this point “it got ugly” and communication ceased. Finally, Mr. Nelson testified that he planned to refund Complainant. On questioning, Mr. Nelson offered no justification for failing to contact Complainant during the directive compliance period.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 18, 2026. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 309821 was Suspended for lack of a qualifying party; and there was 1 open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project or refused to perform work without a legal excuse in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1). Respondent accepted full payment up front, did not complete the project, and did not return Complainant’s payment.

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 14 business days Respondent’s License No. 309821.

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).

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, March 18, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Joey Chester, Investigator

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Troy & Sons Construction LLC

DBA: Septic Medic

[email redacted]

Tyson Cahoon

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff