ALJDEC

02F-M0228-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-02-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 4, 2002. APPEARANCES: COMPLAINANT: by Glen Betenbough, president and authorized representative. RESPONDENT: by Charles Stapley, manager and authorized representative.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Anthony Halas.

Hearing in this matter was convened for the purpose of determining whether Respondent violated state law as alleged by Complainant and as cited by the Registrar of Contractors. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were provided a period of time to reduce to writing a settlement agreement, which was then filed on February 19, 2002. Based on the testimony and evidence of record, and the parties’ written agreement, the undersigned issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Decision: FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Subsequent to hearing, at which time testimony and evidence was taken, an agreement was drafted by the parties to resolve and settle the matter at issue. The essential terms of the agreement were reduced to writing, signed by the parties’ authorized representatives, and submitted for inclusion in the record as Exhibit 1. 2. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Complainant and Respondent agree that Respondent will pay Complainant the sum of $26,000.00, discounted from a balance due of $39,957.05, which sum Respondent will accept as full and final payment of the balance due from Complainant for landscaping materials provided by Respondent from May, 2000, through March 2002, which balance due formed the basis for the complaint at issue herein. 3. The settlement agreement does not specify a date certain by which Respondent’s payment of the discounted amount will be made, but on the information provided, and by reasonable inference, the undersigned finds that Respondent’s payment of the sum of $26,000.00 to Complainant shall be made no later than March 19, 2002, or such other date as the parties may agree to. 4. In exchange for such payment and as a term of the settlement agreement, in accord with the testimony of Complainant’s representative at hearing, Complainant requests that the Registrar dismiss the CITATION AND COMPLAINT in Case No. M02-0228. 5. 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. 6. 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.

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. M02-0228.

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. M02-0228 be dismissed. Done this day, February 20, 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