ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-1901-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-11-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: 26 November 2007 APPEARANCES: Complainant: Paul Tracy. Respondent: Anthony Yay, Owner of Certa Propainters. Others: Scott Deering, Inspector, Arizona Registrar of Contractors ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Maurice McWhirter ________________________________________________________________

Based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Decision are made to the Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”):

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to commencing the instant hearing, the parties concluded a settlement agreement, the essential terms of which were read in the record. 2. Pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned settlement agreement, the parties agreed as follows: a. Respondent will pay to Complainant the sum of $900.00 within 60 days of the ROC final decision in this case.

b. Respondent will complete all of the corrective work set forth in the Corrective Work Order dated 5 April 2007 issued by the ROC in this case within 60 days of the date of the final Decision and Order entered in this matter, with the exception of Complaint #1 (“”mud-cracking” of paint), for which Respondent shall bear no further responsibility. Complainant agreed to provide reasonable access to his home. Respondent agreed to attempt to accomplish the corrective work on a weekend, but is not obligated to do so. c. In consideration of the completion Respondent’s obligations listed above, Complainant withdraws his complaint and request for hearing. 3. The parties agreed that all rights and defenses on the issues of the hearing 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 regarding these same issues, the sole issue for determination shall be whether the parties have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreement. 4. The terms of the forgoing settlement appeared to be the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party. 5. Based on the settlement agreement, the hearing was vacated.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the ROC pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1104 and Title 4, Chapter 9, Article 1 of the Arizona Administrative Code. 2. 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. 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.

RECOMMENDED DECISION In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that this matter be vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings and remanded to the ROC for appropriate disposition. In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order in this matter will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification. Done this day, November 26, 2007

______________________________________ Maurice McWhirter Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2007, to:

Fidelis V. Garcia, Director Registrar of Contractors Legal Department 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________ -----------------------

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