ALJDEC

01F-M1236-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-01-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 24, 2002. APPEARANCES: COMPLAINANT: Mary Hansen, sole proprietor, with Ken Wyzard, office manager. RESPONDENT: by Arla Blasingim-Stenzel, Esq., with Doris Hawkins, member.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Anthony Halas. _____________________________________________________________________

Hearing in this matter convened on January 24, 2002 for the purpose of determining whether Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 32-1154.A.7 and 11, as alleged by Complainant and as cited by the Registrar of Contractors. During the course of the proceeding, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which agreement forms the basis for the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Decision: FINDINGS OF FACT

1. During the course of hearing, and following a discussion between the parties, an agreement was reached to resolve and settle the matters at issue, the essential terms of which agreement were read into the record. 2. Pursuant to those terms, Complainant and Respondent agree that:

A. Respondent will pay Complainant the sum of $7265.00 for services previously provided by Complainant; B. Respondent shall pay that sum over time, in the minimum amount of $500.00 per month, due by the end of each month, beginning in February, 2002. C. If payment is not received by the fifth day of the month after the month due, Complainant may call or fax a request for information to Respondent. D. Complainant shall provide Respondent a monthly statement crediting amounts paid and calculating balance due. E. As an integral element of the agreement, Complainant withdraws its complaint in Case No. 01F-M1236, filed with the Registrar of Contractors on or about April 6, 2001, and requests that the Registrar dismiss this matter. 3. The parties were advised by the undersigned that, by virtue of the settlement agreement, all rights and defenses of the parties would be and have been merged therein, and if any petition for further hearing or for a rehearing is filed, the sole issues for determination by the agency will be whether the parties have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the agreement. 4. The agreement appears to the undersigned to be fair and reasonable under all the circumstances, and it is found to have been the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party, and made in good faith.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The law favors settlement of disputes. The parties to a proceeding such as this should be free to resolve their differences by entering into settlement agreements or stipulations, and such agreements should be recognized and given effect by tribunals. 2. The terms as set forth in the agreement have been reasonably and voluntarily made, reached in good faith and without coercion, and warrant now dismissing the charges alleged in CITATION AND COMPLAINT in Case No. M01-1236.

RECOMMENDED DECISION In view of the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the agreement be adopted by the Registrar of Contractors, and that CITATION AND COMPLAINT in Case No. M01-1236 be dismissed. Done this day, January 24, 2002.

______________________________________ Anthony Halas 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