Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

09F-3720-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-09-23

STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 23, 2009 APPEARANCES: Complainant: Chad Collins, managing member, appeared, pro per. Respondent: John Vucichevich, corporate officer and qualifying party, appeared, pro per. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian E. Smith ________________________________________________________________ Having considered the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order are issued:

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This matter convened for hearing at the time, date and place set forth in the Registrar of Contractors’ Notice of Hearing dated July 28, 2009. 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 Registrar of Contractors, are binding on one another. 3. The terms of the settlement agreement are as follows: a. Complainant herein withdraws the instant Complaint with prejudice and Respondent herein withdraws with prejudice its Complaint in Case No. 09- 4385 against Complainant herein as pertains to a residence located at 522 W. Marlette Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona (“premises/project”) and, as a result, both parties move to have their respective cases dismissed. In addition, the parties further agree that they hereby fully settle, release and/or waive any and all actual and/or potential claims or causes of action each party has and/or may have against the other party arising out of the subject matter of their above-referenced complaints pertaining to the project including, without limitation, those before the Registrar of Contractors, in civil court and/or any other court, forum and/or tribunal. The parties further agree that by this settlement agreement neither party acknowledges any responsibility for and/or fault arising out of the contract between the parties which gave rise to both of the above- referenced matters; and, b. It is further agreed that the respective claims of Complainant and Respondent pertaining to a commercial property addressed in Case Nos. 09- 3259 and 09-4395 (Docket Nos. 09F-3259-ROC and 09F-4395-ROC) which are presently set to convene for hearing October 21, 2009, before Administrative Law Judge Tully, remain in full force and effect. 4. The parties agree to act in good faith toward the accomplishment of each of their respective obligations under the terms of this 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 is 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, the official record with the Registrar of Contractors as pertains to Complainant’s Class K-27 License No. 206292 and Respondent’s Class B- License No. 193211 will reflect the instant matter and Case No. 09- 4385 as closed complaints 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 action on the part of each party. 9. Based on the settlement agreement, the instant hearing and the hearing, as pertains to Case No. 09-4385 (Docket No. 09F-4385-ROC) only, scheduled for October 21, 2009, were 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 the termination of this matter.

ORDER In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED vacating the instant hearing and the October 21, 2009 hearing as pertains only to Case No. 09-4385 (Docket No. 09F-4385-ROC) from the docket of the Office of Administrative Hearings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter and Case No. 09-4385 to the Registrar of Contractors for further appropriate action.[1] Done this day, September 23, 2009.

_______________________ Brian E. Smith Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2009, to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors c/o Legal Department 3838 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012

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