ALJDEC

97F-2318-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-01-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 8, 1998

APPEARANCES: -Complainant; represented by Attorney K. Michelle Lind. -Respondent; David Chamberlin and D.B. Chamberlin appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Casey J. Newcomb _____________________________________________________________________ On January 8, 1998, a Rehearing was held to determine if the Respondent had violated A.R.S §32-1154(A)(3)(7) and Rule 4-9-108. Attorney K. Michelle Lind represented the Complainant. David Chamberlin, the Respondent’s President, and D.B. Chamberlin, the Respondent’s Qualifying Partner, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Evidence and testimony were presented. However, prior to the conclusion of the Rehearing, the parties reached a settlement on the issues as set forth below. Based upon a review of the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Decision and Order are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On May 24, 1996, the Respondent and CLTC Exchange Company, an agent of the Complainant, entered into a Contractor Agreement to convert a recreation room and office into three new apartments at Glencourt Apartments located at 6002 W. Glendale, Glendale, Arizona (the “Project”).

2. The Respondent and the Complainant (or CLTC Exchange Company) also entered into a Property Management Agreement regarding the Glencourt Apartments.

3. Per the terms of the Contractor Agreement, the project was to have been completed by August 31, 1996. However, the completion date was extended to the second week of January (1997) because of permit problems arising from inspections by the City of Glendale.

4. On August 29, 1997, the Registrar of Contractors (the “ROC”) sent a Citation and Complaint to the Respondent alleging violations of A.R.S. §32- 1154(A)(3)&(7). The Respondent failed to timely file an Answer to the ROC’s Complaint and Citation. Consequently, the ROC issued a Decision and Order suspending the Respondent’s Class B-02 license until corrective action was completed.

5. On September 23, 1997, the Respondent requested a Rehearing which was granted over an objection by the Complainant.

6. As of January 8, 1998, only the first of three phases of the Project has been completed.

7. At the January 8, 1998 Rehearing, the parties agreed to settle this dispute pursuant to the following terms: A. The Respondent has agreed to perform the remaining phases of the Project pursuant to the terms of the Contractor Agreement. B. The Complainant has agreed to pay the balance of the contract price pursuant to the terms of the Contractor Agreement. C. The Respondent has agreed to be responsible for the costs of renewing existing permits and/or the costs of acquiring new permits to complete the Project. D. The Respondent has agreed to begin working on the Project on January 8, 1998, and will have the Project completed as soon as possible (but no later than 90 days after the January 8, 1998 starting date). E. The Complainant has agreed to designate Mike Jonas, the Property Manager at Glencourt Apartments, as a contact person between the parties. The Complainant has agreed to grant Mr. Jonas the authority to (1) approve changes in the Project plans and (2) resolve disputes or issues that may arise during the completion of the Project. F. The Complainant has agreed to allow any changes in the Project’s plans that are necessary for compliance with the City of Glendale’s building codes or the ROC’s rules and regulations. G. Upon the completion of the Project (as demonstrated by the receipt of a Certificate of Completion by the City of Glendale), the parties have agreed to enter into an agreement mutually releasing each party from all claims or lawsuits arising from the Contractor Agreement and the Property Management Agreement.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Public policy favors the settlement of disputes. Therefore, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge accepts the settlement agreement set forth in Findings of Fact #7 and further finds that this settlement agreement is both fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

2. The settlement agreement reached and submitted during the hearing in this matter warrants the termination of the instant hearing and the dismissal of the Citation and Complaint.

DECISION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar accept and approve the settlement agreement between the parties. It is further recommended that the entire Citation and Complaint in Case No. 97-2318 be dismissed and that this matter be remanded to the ROC for case closure.

Done this day, January 8, 1998.

______________________________________ Casey J. Newcomb Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 1998, to:

Mr. Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

ATTN: Joyce Armijo

By ___________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1700 West Washington, Suite 602 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826