Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

07F-M0202-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-02-22

STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 22, 2007 APPEARANCES: Complainant: Mary Mosby appeared, pro per. Respondent: Raymond Dale Keller Sr., owner and qualifying party, appeared, pro per. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian E. Smith ________________________________________________________________ Having read and considered the entire record, the following Findings of Fact are made, Conclusions of Law entered and Order issued:

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The matter convened for hearing at the time, date and place set forth in the Registrar of Contractors’ Notice of Hearing dated January 17, 2007. 2. Prior to the presentation of any testimony or evidence, a discussion ensued off the record by and between the parties under the direction of the Administrative Law Judge. As a result of that discussion, the parties concluded and stipulated to a settlement agreement the essential terms of which were then read into the record. For purposes of determining this matter, the obligations of the parties under the settlement agreement set forth below, if accepted by the Director of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, are binding on one another. 3. The terms of the parties’ settlement agreement are as follows: a. The parties stipulate and agree that they entered into a contract in January 2006 (“contract”) whereby Respondent was to perform certain roofing and related work on Complainant’s residence located at 9351 Citrus Ln. N., Sun Lakes, Arizona (“premises/project”) for a total sum of $2,564.00. b. The parties further stipulate and agree that Complainant paid Respondent all but $1,284.00 due on the above-referenced contract. c. Complainant hereby waives any claim for and releases Respondent from any further obligations under the parties’ contract including, without limitation, the performance of any further work on the premises and/or refund of any monies previously paid thereunder. Concomitantly, Respondent hereby waives any claim for and releases Complainant from any further obligations under the parties’ contract including, without limitation, the payment of any additional monies due thereunder. The parties further stipulate and agree that this settlement agreement shall serve as a mutual release and waiver of any and all actual and/or potential claims or causes of action the parties have and/or may have against each other arising out of their contract for work done or to be done by Respondent on the premises including, without limitation, any obligation of Respondent to perform warranty work on the project and for Complainant to pay Respondent any additional money under the contract, including matters before the Registrar of Contractors, in civil court and/or any other court. 4. The parties agree to act in good faith toward the accomplishment of each of their respective obligations under the terms of the settlement agreement. 5. Both parties acknowledge that they are authorized to act on behalf of themselves and/or their company and enter into the settlement agreement and do so knowingly, voluntarily and on a presumption of good faith. 6. The parties agree that all rights and defenses were to be merged into the settlement agreement and if any petition for rehearing of this matter was filed and granted, or if any new complaint was filed, the sole issue for determination shall be whether the parties have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreement. 7. The parties were advised of the Registrar of Contractors’ license record keeping policies and procedures and agree that, as a result of the settlement, Respondent’s official record with the Registrar of Contractors will reflect the instant matter as a closed complaint under the category of settled/withdrawn/resolved. 8. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the terms of the settlement agreement were reasonable under the circumstances and were the product of a knowing and voluntary act on the part of each party. 9. Based on the settlement agreement, the hearing was vacated.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The law favors the settlement of disputes and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into agreements and stipulations of settlement that should be recognized and given effect by the tribunal with jurisdiction over the issues and that possesses statutory enforcement authority. 2. The settlement reached and submitted during the hearing of this matter, having been found to be reasonable and voluntarily made, warrants termination of this matter.

ORDER In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED vacating the hearing from the docket of the Office of Administrative Hearings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding the matter to the Registrar of Contractors for further appropriate action.[1] Done this day, February 22, 2007.

______________________ Brian E. Smith Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By ________________________ ----------------------- [1] 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.

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

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