ALJDEC

01F-T0021-ROC-COM · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-05-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: Wednesday, May 8th, 2002; 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: Complainants were represented by Ms. Elaine Leasure. Respondent was represented by Mr. Robert S. Wolkin, attorney-at-law. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston. _____________________________________________________________________

The administrative hearing of this matter was held in the Office of Administrative Hearings, Tucson, Arizona. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted to the record, and, based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This administrative hearing was a compliance hearing purposed to determine whether respondent had substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the decision and order issued on March 27th, 2001, and reconsideration of the appropriateness of the disciplinary penalty imposed or that may be imposed as a result of the hearing. 2. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which were stated and agreed to on the record. 3. The settlement agreement stated on the record is as follows: First, respondent agreed to pay the complainants a sum certain from $362.74 up to that figure plus 15%, which is $54.42 additional, for a total of $417.16. The $362.74 is the amount bid by Conway Tile Company (AZ Registrar of Contractors C-48 Lic. No. 065021; AZ Registrar of Contractors L-48 Lic. No. 069565), to perform the tile work complainants desire at the job-site which is the subject of this hearing. However, since the bid complainants had from Conway, which is in evidence, was almost one year old, respondent agreed to account for inflation and to pay complainants that amount or any amount up to an additional 15% above the bid so they could have Conway do the work. 4. Second, respondent agreed to absorb the cost of any additional tiling for the job. Complainants had some tile for the job, but it may not be enough. 5. Following the hearing the parties learned that Conway’s present cost for performing the work at complainants’ house is a bit higher than they had anticipated. Conway’s present bid is $445.65. Respondent, through counsel, notified the OAH in writing of the increase and respondent’s agreement to pay complainants the new, higher bid by Conway. A copy of the letter was served on complainants. Since the parties had achieved agreement and the amount was slightly higher than they had anticipated it would be, the agreement’s modification in complainants’ favor by $28.49, the upward amended settlement amount is recommended as the accurate reflection of the agreement. This is recommended also in the spirit of avoiding necessity of the parties returning for another hearing simply to ratify the new higher amount. The submission of the letter informing of the amended bid was not in the way of offering any additional evidence after closing of the record, but only so as to accurately reflect a settlement amount it was the intention of the parties to agree to. 6. Therefore, the settlement is that respondent shall pay complainants $445.65, and, if necessary, the cost of any additional tile to complete the job in complainants’ bathroom. 7. The settlement agreement was shown to be the product of knowing and voluntary action by each party. . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §32- 1156, and A.R.S. §41-1092. 2. A general policy of law favors settlements of disputes and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into settlement agreements which should be recognized and given effect by all tribunals. 3. The settlement reached and submitted during the hearing of this matter, having been found to be voluntarily made, warrants the termination of the instant hearing and the closure of this case. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing it is hereby recommended that citation and complaint number T01-0021 be closed. Done this day, May 22nd, 2002.

________________________________ GRANT WINSTON Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By _______________________________

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