ALJDEC

97F-P0217-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-04-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

| |§| | |MARY LINDQUIST, |§|CASE NO.: p97-0217 | | |§| | | |§|DOCKET NO.: 97f-p0217-roc | |Complainant, |§| | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No. 118305, Class B- of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |CROWN GENERAL, INC. (CORP.), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: March 25, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Duane Smith. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on March 25, 1998. The Complainant appeared on her own behalf and the Respondent appeared through its attorney, Duane Smith. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order on are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of a Class B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This matter concerns a residential project where the Respondent installed a new metal roof and new concrete sidewalks and a new concrete slab for the Complainant’s car-port.

3. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned agency inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective action on the Complainant’s residence.

5. The parties were in sharp dispute as to whether the Respondent had properly complied with the terms and conditions of the corrective work order and the matter was set for formal hearing.

6. During a recess at the hearing, the parties concluded a settlement agreement the essential terms of which were stated for the record.

7. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, the Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant a specific sum of money by an agreed upon date. The Complainant agreed to withdraw her complaint and request a dismissal of the present matter.

8. The Agreement was shown to be the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into settlement agreements which should be recognized and given effect by all tribunals.

2. The parties’ settlement agreement warrants the termination of the instant hearing.

. . .

. . .

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Citation No. P97- 0217, together with the complaint upon which it is based, be dismissed.

Dated this 1st day of April, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of April, 1998 to:

Michael Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors Attn: Joyce Armijo 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

Transmitted by:

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