Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

2010A-308473840-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-03-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 1, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through its authorized representative, Mike George. The Respondents appeared through their authorized representative, Brett Hale. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

The following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. During the scheduled hearing, the parties manifested movement in the direction of a resolution of the matter at issue. Therefore, the parties were afforded the opportunity to craft a settlement agreement, the essential terms of which were stated for the record. 2. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Respondent agreed to replace up to twenty five (25) 24” box trees with box trees of the same size and of comparable type (Chilean Mesquite or Palo Brea) and to properly correct the sink hole and the drainage at the Complainant’s two (2) storey model home located at 518 W. Black Hawk Place. 3. The Respondent agreed to complete all of the agreed upon corrective action on or before 6:00 p.m., March 11, 2011. 4. The Complainant agreed to withdraw the complaints at issue and agreed to the closing of the instant citations. 5. The Complainant further agreed that if there were rain storms that prevented the Respondents from complying with the March 11, 2011, deadline that the Complainant would extend the deadline for the amount of time necessary for the rain water to percolate into the soil. 6. The parties acknowledged that they understood the terms of their Settlement Agreement and they had entered into the Settlement Agreement voluntarily and in good faith. 7. This tribunal finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are reasonable under the circumstances and that the Settlement Agreement was the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party thereto. 8. In light of having entered into the Settlement Agreement the Complainant and the Respondent agreed to vacate the hearing in this matter. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A general policy of law favors the settlement of disputes and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into agreements and stipulations of settlement which should be recognized and given effect by the tribunal having jurisdiction over the issues and statutory enforcement authority. 2. Termination of the instant hearing is mandated by the parties having entered into the Settlement Agreement, as well as having agreed to vacate the hearing. A.A.C.R2-19-111(1) and (4). ORDER Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-111(1) and (4), it is ordered vacating the hearing in this matter and remanding this matter to the Director of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors for further disposition. Done this day, March 1, 2011. _________________________________ M. Douglas 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

By _______________________________

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

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