ALJDEC

97F-T1119-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-01-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS | |(| | |PAULA OR DANIEL SINGER, |(|Case No.: T97-1119 | | |(| | |Complainants, |(|Docket No.: 97F-T1119-ROC | | |(| | |vs. |(| | | |(|Recommended | |License No. 081385, Class C-10 of|(|Decision and Order | |BURNS DRYWALL CORPORATION, |(| | |(CORP), |(| | | |(| | |Respondent. |(| | | |(| |

HEARING: Tuesday, January 6th, 1998; 9:00 a.m. Appearances: The Complainants were represented by Complainant, Daniel Singer. The Respondent was represented by Vernon E. Peltz, Attorney-at- Law. Administrative Law Judge: Grant Winston

This matter was brought on for administrative hearing on Tuesday, January 6th, 1998. The Complainants were represented by Daniel Singer. The Respondent was represented by Vernon E. Peltz, Attorney-at-Law. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted and, based on the record taken as a whole, the following recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1. This hearing was called at the date and time noticed. The Complainant is a homeowner in Tucson, Arizona, and his complaint is to do with the drywall work, and activities incidental thereto performed on his home in and around the summer and fall of 1996.

2. The Respondent herein is, and at all times material hereto was, a licensed contractor in the State of Arizona, holding Class C-10 License Number 081385.

3. During the course of the hearing, the parties requested to go off record for the purpose of discussing their outstanding differences without the presence of the undersigned Administrative Law Judge.

4. When the hearing was re-commenced, the parties announced that they had reached a settlement of their differences in this case. The terms of their settlement were recited into the record, and both parties, after having the heard those terms and while under oath, ratified the terms and indicated their voluntary acceptance of them as their fair and amicable settlement of this matter.

5. The settlement agreement is as follows: Respondent will be allowed a maximum of three trips to the job-site to make its best effort to repair the existing cracks and depressions in the drywall (including areas in the garage, hallway, and outside the bedroom); Respondent also will repair any other cracks that are visible and shown to Respondent’s employee; Respondent will also bring a power washer to attempt to remove any spots or stains on Complainants’ outside wall, with Complainant being willing to make allowance for the fact that he has already applied some sealant over this area, and Respondent’s efforts here may prove to be less than 100% efficacious, or make no significant improvement at all. It is also agreed between the parties that all work performed will be performed by Mr. David Zimmer. Once the Respondent has with all good faith effort performed these corrective measures, Complainants agree that this complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice.

Conclusions of Law

1. This hearing was held under authority of A.R.S. §32-1156, and A.R.S. §41-1092.

2. A general policy of law favors settlements of disputes, and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into settlement agreements which should be recognized and given effect by all tribunals.

3. The settlement agreement reached and submitted during the hearing of this matter is not unconscionable and warrants the termination of the instant hearing.

Recommended Order

In view of the foregoing it is hereby recommended that Citation Number T97-1119 be closed.

Dated this 12th day of January, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of January, 1998, to:

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

Transmitted by:

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