ALJDEC

00F-1988-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-06-27

STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 27, 2000.

APPEARANCES: The Complainant was represented by its attorney, Jeffrey M. Hall, Esq.

The Respondent appeared through its President and Qualifying Party, Jahn Trombley.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Robert I. Worth ________________________________________________________________ Based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Immediately after the formal opening of the scheduled hearing and following prolonged discussions between the parties with the Administrative Law Judge remaining present, the parties concluded a settlement agreement, the essential terms of which were read onto the record.

2. Pursuant to the provisions of the parties’ settlement agreement, Respondent agreed to pay or tender, and Complainant agreed to accept, a specified total monetary amount, payable by certified checks in equal installments, each due on fixed deadline dates, in full satisfaction of the complaint presently pending before the Registrar of Contractors. Respondent also agreed, solely for the purposes of proper disposition of the instant administrative disciplinary proceeding, to the entry of a finding of a violation of the charged code sections and to the imposition of a provisional license revocation after the specified date for the final agreed installment payment; provided however, that no disciplinary penalty of any type would be imposed if the payment terms of the settlement agreement were fully and timely complied with by Respondent. Complainant agreed to record and deliver a satisfaction of civil judgment following Respondent’s making all payments, as agreed, also agreeing to allow a stated discount amount for potential early installment payments by Respondent, if any.

3. The administrative disciplinary proceedings hereunder are effectively cut short by the entry into the above-described settlement agreement which is to be presented to the Registrar of Contractors for approval and adoption. Consequently, Respondent must be and hereby is advised that any future breach of the payment terms of the settlement agreement will not only constitute grounds for the filing of a timely petition for rehearing or of a new complaint, but also shall warrant treatment as a circumstance in aggravation.

4. All rights and defenses of the respective parties are deemed to have been merged into the settlement agreement, and if any timely petition for rehearing of this matter is to be filed and granted, or if any new complaint is filed in the future, the sole issue for determination shall be whether Respondent has performed its obligations under the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreement

5. It was mutually understood that the entry by the respective parties into the settlement agreement was without any admission of fault, liability or obligation on the part of Respondent, and correspondingly without any admission by Complainant that it was not entitled to greater benefits.

6. The terms of the foregoing settlement agreement appeared to be fair and reasonable under all the circumstances, and the agreement was determined to be the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The policy of the law favors settlements of disputes, and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into agreements or stipulations which should be recognized and given effect by all tribunals.

2. The contents of the parties’ settlement agreement, as well as the entire case record herein, supports a determination that Respondent has violated the provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154A, as charged in the issued Citation.

3. The settlement reached and submitted during the hearing of this matter, having been found to be reasonable and voluntarily made, warrants the termination of the instant hearing and the imposition of a provisional license revocation, conditions upon Respondent’s compliance with its payment obligations under the parties’ mutual settlement agreement, in which event the charges contained in the Citation and Complaint would be closed.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class B-01 license be revoked on October 15,2000.

It is further recommended that if Respondent fully and timely complies with the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, as read upon the record at the hearing of this matter, by making the agreed payments when due as envisioned under the aforesaid settlement, then no license revocation shall be imposed, but instead, the entire Citation and Complaint in Case Number 00-1988 shall be closed.

Irrespective of the extended date provided above for the provisional imposition of a future disciplinary penalty, if any, for the purposes of further administrative or judicial review or appeal, this Order becomes effective thirty-five (35) days after the date of mailing by the Registrar.

Dated: July 3, 2000.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Robert I. Worth Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted on _____________________

by: _____________________________ , to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

Attn: Joyce Armijo -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826