ALJDEC

97F-M1520-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1997-10-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 3, 1997 APPEARANCE: Complainants appeared on their own behalf. M G V Marshall’s Custom Homes Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “M G V”) appeared through its president, Marshall Varner. Delta Carpets, Inc. ( hereinafter referred to as “Delta”) appeared through its president, David Worden. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Mark A. Silver _____________________________________________________________________

Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made: . . . . . . . . . FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The above-entitled matters were consolidated for the purpose of hearing, since both involved the same basic issues and entailed the use of the same witnesses and evidence. Delta was the carpet subcontractor employed by M G V to supply and install new carpet in the home ultimately purchased by Complainants. 2. Regarding the stucco issues enumerated in the complaint filed against M G V, Complainants averred that said issues had been satisfactorily resolved at this time. However, Complainants contend that there is a new issue referable to the stucco application on the screen wall surrounding the air-conditioning equipment. It was shown that the issue of the screen wall was not set forth in the original filed complaint and was an item which M G V had not been noticed would be a part of the instant hearing. Therefore, based on basic principles of due process under the law, this issue was disallowed for consideration at the instant hearing. Nothing in this ruling will prevent Complainants from filing a new complaint on this issue if M G V fails to properly correct the claimed deficiency. 3. Following a prolonged discussion between the parties, prior to commencing the instant hearing, the parties concluded a settlement agreement, the essential terms of which were read upon the record. 4. Pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned settlement agreement, M G V agreed to pay Complainants a specified sum of money within a stated period of time. Delta agreed to sell Complainants any carpet of their choice, within a stated period of time, at its cost and to install same for a total of $168.00. Complainants agreed to withdraw the filed complaint. 5. The parties agreed that all rights and defenses were to be merged into the settlement agreement and if any petition for rehearing of this matter was to be filed and granted, or if any new complaint was filed, the sole issues for determination shall be whether the parties have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreement. 6. The terms of the foregoing settlement appeared to be reasonable under all the circumstances and the agreement was determined to be the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party. . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The policy of the law favors settlements 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. 2. The settlement reached and submitted during the hearing of this matter, having been found to be reasonable and voluntarily made, warrants the termination of the instant hearing.

RECOMMENDATION

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Citation Nos. M1518 and M1520, together with the Complaints upon which they are based, be dismissed.

Done this day, October 10, 1997

_______________________________ MARK A. SILVER Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of October, 1997, to:

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

By _______________________________

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

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