Vacate: Settlement Recommendation

2012A-2016-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2012-10-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 18, 2012, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Catherine Yawit (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on his own behalf. Southwest Iron Works (hereinafter “Southwest”) appeared through its attorney, Paul A. Loucks, Esq., Mesch Clark & Rothschild PC. 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. A copy of the parties’ written settlement agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Southwest agreed install an iron door as manufactured and to reduce the amount of the final bill for the iron door, and iron door installation, to $1,500.00. Complainant agreed to promptly apply for approval from her HOA for the installation of the iron door, to pay the reduced amount of $1,500.00 for the iron door and iron door installation, to withdraw the complaint at issue and close the instant citation. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. In light of having entered into the Settlement Agreement, Complainant and Southwest 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, October 18, 2012.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Copy mailed/e-mailed October 23, 2012 to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors c/o Legal Department 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

Paul A. Loucks, Esq. Mesch Clark & Rothschild PC 259 North Meyer Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701

Integrity Inc dba Southwest Iron Works 1870 W Prince Rd Ste 52 Tucson AZ 85705-2970

Catherine Yawit 13486 N Sunset Mesa Dr Marana AZ 85658-4058

Catherine Yawit 3535 Newcomb Dr. Anchorage, AK 99508

By: Cruz Serrano

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

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