Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

2010A-308475502-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-04-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 5, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through Diane Smith. The Respondent appeared on its authorized representative, Forrester Thomas. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

Evidence and testimony were presented and 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 parties’ Settlement Agreement, The Respondent agreed to reduce the amount claimed against the Complainants to $890.00 and agreed to accept payments on the $890.00 amount from the Complainants’ lessee, Chad Pronovost. 3. The Complainant’s lessee, Chad Pronovost, agreed to pay the Respondent a total sum of $890.00, in monthly installments with a payment of $300.00 due on April 15, 2011, a second payment of $300.00 due on May 16, 2011, and the final payment of $290.00 to be due on or before June 13, 2011. 4. The parties and Mr. Pronovost agreed that all payments would be made to the Respondent with cashiers’ checks. 5. The Complainants agreed to withdraw the complaint at issue and agreed to the closing of the instant citation. 6. The parties further agreed that if the Complainants’ lessee, Chad Pronovost, failed to pay the agreed upon sums to the Respondent in accordance with the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement a timely manner that the Complainants would continue with their civil action against Chad Pronovost and as portion of their civil action the Complainants would seek the entire amount of $1,500.00 claimed due and owing by the Respondent form the Complainants and the Complainants’ lessee for the Respondent’s labor and materials utilized for the construction project at issue.. 7. The parties acknowledged that they understood the terms of their Settlement Agreement and that they had entered into the Settlement Agreement voluntarily and in good faith. 8. 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. 9. 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 the applicable provisions of 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, April 5, 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