ALJDEC

00F-A990027-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 2000-07-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 19, 2000 APPEARANCES: Petitioners : Lois and Billy Dungey appeared at the hearing pro se. Respondent : Mike Herman, Cavco Industries Litchfield, Operations Manager. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Gary B. Strickland _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The scheduled hearing of this matter convened and testimony was presented. During the hearing, the parties manifested movement in the direction of a resolution of the issues that had resulted in the Department of Building and Fire Safety having issued its Verified Complaint & Sign-Off and 30-Day Notice on January 28, 2000. Petitioners indicated that they were appealing only item #14 as indicated on the Inspector’s Sign-Off Form (dissatisfaction with the drapes in the kitchen, family room and living room). Despite the Department of Building and Fire Safety’s rescission of its earlier findings with respect to item #14 whereby a verification was rendered, the rescission and change to “Not Verified” issued on May 1, 2000, the parties were afforded the opportunity to craft a settlement, the essential terms of which were read into the record. For purposes of determining this matter, if accepted by the Director of the Department of Building and Fire Safety, the obligations of the parties under the settlement agreement set forth below are binding on each other. 2. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ stipulation, the Respondent party, Cavco Industries Litchfield, agrees to pay a monetary settlement to Petitioners in the amount of $290.79, based upon the estimate of replacement cost provided by Petitioners. Respondent will issue payment on August 1, 2000. In consideration for the offer of settlement and as manifestation of acceptance thereof, Petitioners have agreed to withdraw their Petition. 3. The parties have agreed that all rights and defenses relating to this matter are merged into the stipulation and agreement and should any petitions for rehearing be filed and granted, or new complaints filed, the sole issue for determination shall be whether the parties have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the stipulation and agreement executed by them at the hearing. 4. The terms of the foregoing stipulation and agreement appear reasonable under all of the circumstances and this agreement is determined the product of a fully informed and voluntary action by each party. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The law favors the settlement of disputes and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into agreements and stipulations of settlement which should be recognized and given effect by the tribunal with proper jurisdiction to issue such orders. 2. The settlement reached and crafted by the parties and acknowledged by them on the record, having been found reasonable and voluntarily made, warrants a termination of the hearing. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Director of the Arizona Department of Building and Fire Safety dismiss this matter upon the resolution by the parties of the outstanding issues.

Set forth this 19th day of July in the year 2000.

______________________________________ Gary B. Strickland Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2000, to:

Department of Building and Fire Safety N. Eric Borg ATTN: Michelle M. Castaneda East Virginia, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004

By ___________________________

-----------------------

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