Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

2010A-1023280-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-10-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

The hearing of this matter convened on October 26, 2011. Erica Jimenez (“Complainant”) was represented by Richard Edgar, Esq. and E Z E Construction LLC (“Respondent”) was represented by James Sparks, Esq. Prior to proceeding on the merits, outside the presence of the Administrative Law Judge, Complainant and Respondent entered into a settlement agreement, the terms of which were read into the record. The terms of the above-mentioned settlement agreement are as follows: 1) Respondent has performed stucco repair work at Complainant’s residence. Both parties deny any wrongdoing and agree that, with the exception of a bedroom door, all items in the Complaint have been repaired and completed to the satisfaction of Complainant. 2) Within thirty days of the hearing, Respondent will take corrective action to address the weather stripping of the master bedroom door that leads to a patio. 3) Within thirty days of the date of hearing, or within any extension of time if Complainant is attempting in good faith to arrange for a properly licensed and bonded painter, Complainant will have her residence at 1497 North Daniela Ave., Lot 36, in Sommerton Arizona, painted with elastomeric paint at her own expense. 4) Within five days of the residence being painted, Complainant has the burden of accepting or rejecting the work. If Complainant accepts the work, she will pay Respondent the sum of $6,350.00 within five days. If Complainant rejects the work because it does not meet minimum workmanship standards, an independent inspector from the Registrar of Contractors or a mutually agreeable third party inspector shall inspect the residence to determine if the work is within workmanship standards. If it is determined that the work was not conducted in accordance with workmanship standards due to cracking of stucco, Respondent will have an opportunity to cure. Once it is determined that the work meets workmanship standards, Respondent will warranty the stucco work for two years and Complainant must provide Respondent payment of $6,350.00. 5) Complainant’s painting contractor will warranty the painting of the residence 6) Based upon the settlement of this matter, the case can be closed as having been resolved, settled, or withdrawn.[1] The policy of the law favors settlement of disputes and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into agreements or stipulations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. The settlement reached and submitted during the hearing of this matter, having found to be voluntarily made, warrants the termination of the instant hearing. / / /

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED vacating the hearing and remanding to the Registrar of Contractors for appropriate disposition.

Done this day, November 3, 2011.

_________________________________ Lewis D. Kowal Administrative Law Judge

Copy transmitted by mail this _____ day of _________, 2011 to:

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

James Sparks, Esq. Britt Law Group, P.C. 6263 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 144 Scottsdale, AZ 85250

Richard Edgar, Esq. Edgar & Minore, PC 340 west Fifth Street Yuma, AZ 85364

By _______________________________

----------------------- [1] The Administrative Law Judge made the parties aware of the Registrar of Contactors’ policy of not dismissing a citation and complaint when a matter is settled.

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

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