ALJDEC

01F-2572-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-01-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 4, 2002. APPEARANCES: Kenneth Ayres represented himself. Respondent was represented by David S. Goldy, Esq. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Gregory L. Hanchett _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This matter was set for hearing on January 4, 2002. Immediately before the hearing, the parties entered into and successfully completed settlement negotiations between themselves. 2. The terms of the settlement were read into the record. Under the agreement, Respondent agreed to (1) Repair the split board that anchors the dishwasher, (2) Paint the trim piece on the master bathroom door frame that had been earlier replaced, (3) Paint the areas on the stucco block fence that were repaired but remain to be painted, (4) Repair exhaust vents that are in need of repair and repair any stucco around those vents that has been damaged, (5) Repair the cultured marble window sill in the tub area of the rear bedroom bathroom, (6) Repair the areas of loose carpeting in the loft area, the master bedroom, and the living room, (7) Apply stucco to the vertical sections on the front of the home near the garage, with the stucco work to match the elevation shown on the blue prints, and paint the stucco to match the existing paint on the home, (8) Install a 100 pound liquid propane storage tank with manifold for the fireplace, (9) Replace the current air conditioning unit with a two stage 14 SEER, 5 ton condenser manufactured by Carrier Corporation, (10) Install new exterior support poles to replace the five exterior support poles which are currently installed on the home. In addition, Respondent agreed that all of the above work would be completed on or before February 14, 2002. In exchange for the promises of Respondent, Complainant agreed not to pursue his complainant against Respondent seeking installation of a 100 amp electrical panel. Complainant further agreed that he would allow Respondent reasonable access to complete the items denominated above 2. The terms of the forgoing settlement appeared to be 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. 3. The parties agreed that all rights and defenses were to be merged into the settlement agreement and 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 be whether the parties have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreement. . . . 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 of settlement which should be recognized and given effect by all tribunals. 2. 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. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the above settlement of the parties be accepted and that Citation No. 01-2572, together with the complaint, be closed. Done this day, January 10, 2002

______________________________________ Gregory L. Hanchett Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2002 to:

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

By ___________________________

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

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