Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

07F-M2044-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2008-05-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

The hearing of this matter convened on May 13, 2008. Mike Schern, Esq. represented Complainant Nathan Yetter. Ernest Shaver, Esq. represented Respondent Todd Andrew Nielsen, doing business as T N Builders. Based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order are submitted to the Director of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, outside the presence of the Administrative Law Judge, the parties concluded a settlement agreement, the terms of which were read upon the record. 2. The terms of the aforementioned settlement agreement are as follows: a. Respondent will pay to Complainant the sum of $60,000.00, payable in eight monthly installments of $7,500.00 payable on or about the 1st of each month, commencing in June 2008; b. In exchange for such payment, Complainant releases Respondent of any and all obligations to perform any corrective work or any further work under the terms of the parties’ contract at Complainant’s residence, including warranty work; c. Complainant maintains the right to directly contact any subcontractors for warranty work; d. The parties have a pending civil suit in Maricopa County Superior court, case number CV2007-091788, and Respondent stipulates to a judgment in this matter in the amount of $60,000.00, inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs, in favor of Complainant; e. Complainant covenants not to execute the stipulated judgment unless Respondent fails to meet its payment obligations under the terms of this settlement agreement; and f. The parties further stipulate to a cure period such that if Respondent fails to make a $7,500.00 payment by the 5th day of each month, Respondent will receive written notice that it shall have five days to cure such non-payment. 3. The Administrative Law Judge finds the terms of the foregoing settlement to be the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party. 4. Based on the settlement agreement between the parties, the hearing was vacated. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. 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. 2. 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. ORDER In view of the foregoing, the hearing in this matter is vacated and the matter is hereby remanded to the Registrar of Contractors for appropriate disposition.

Done this day, May 19, 2008.

_________________________________ Sondra J. Vanella Administrative Law Judge

Copy transmitted by mail this _____ day of May, 2008 to:

Fidelis V. Garcia, Director Registrar of Contractors 3838 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012

By _______________________________

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

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