Vacate- 12/13/07 changed ALJDEC to vacate./rjr

07F-2597-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-11-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: 26 November 2007 APPEARANCES: Complainant: Julia James, Complainant; don James, husband of Complainant. Respondent: None. 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. No one appeared to represent Respondent. However, Respondent sent a letter dated 20 November 2007 to the ROC stating that the 2 March 2007 invoice for plumbing services rendered for Complainant in the amount of $387.57 (which is at the heart of the dispute in this matter) was no longer going to be pursued by Respondent against Complainant, and that Respondent would not be attending the hearing. It was clear from the tone of the letter that Respondent was attempting to negotiate a settlement with Complainant by foregoing collection of the invoice, but mistakenly sent the letter to the ROC, rather than Complainant. 2. Complainant had not seen Respondent’s letter prior to the hearing, but after reading it at hearing was amenable to withdrawing her complaint and request for hearing in exchange for Respondent foregoing payment on the invoice. Complainant further stated that she did not desire any disciplinary action taken against Complainant as a result of her complaint. 3. Pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned de facto “settlement”, parties agreed as follows: a. Respondent agrees to forego payment on 2 March 2007 invoice for plumbing services rendered to Complainant in the amount of $387.57. c. In consideration of the completion Respondent’s obligations listed above, Complainant withdraws her complaint and request for hearing. 4. All rights and defenses on the issues of the hearing are 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. 5. The terms of the forgoing settlement appeared to be the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party. 6. 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