ALJDEC

00F-T0025-ROC-RHG · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-09-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 7, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through his attorney, Michael Smith. The Respondent appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas _____________________________________________________________________ Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order on Limited Rehearing are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On February 15, 2000, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. 2. The parties’ settlement agreement provided for the accomplishment of specific corrective action to be performed on the Complainant’s residence. 3. There was no dispute that the Respondent did send a workman out to apply coating to the Complainant’s roof. The parties then became involved in a dispute regarding the color and amount of coating to be applied. No coating was applied. The Respondent did not perform any of the other agreed upon items based on his desire to perform the roof repair work first. 4. Following a recess at the limited rehearing the parties entered into a second settlement agreement, the essential terms of which were stated for the record. 5. The Respondent specifically agreed to perform corrective action on the items set forth in the prior settlement agreement and to complete all corrective action by 5:00 p.m. on October 14, 2000. 6. The Complainant specifically agreed to grant access to the Respondent to perform the agreed upon corrective actions. 7. The Respondent is admonished that all corrective work must comply with applicable industry standards. 8. The Complainant is admonished that reasonable access to the residence must be allowed in accordance with parties’ settlement agreement. 9. The parties agreed that all rights and defenses were to be merged into their settlement agreement and that if any Petition for Rehearing of this matter was to be filed, and granted, or if any new complaint was filed, the sole issues for determination shall whether the parties have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. 10. The Agreement was shown to be the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into settlement agreements which should be recognized and given effect by all tribunals. 2. The parties’ settlement agreement presented at the Limited Rehearing warrants the termination of the Limited Rehearing. RECOMMENDED ORDER ON LIMITED REHEARING In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that parties’ settlement agreement be accepted and that Citation No.00F-T0025 be closed. Done this day, September 21, 2000.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By _______________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488