ALJDEC

98F-C978123-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 1998-03-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|W. DENNIS BROWN, |(| | | |(|Docket No.: 98F-C978123-BFS | |Complainant, |(| | |vs. |(| | | |(| | |APACHE TRAILER SALES, INC., |(|Recommended | |d.b.a. MISSION VIEW HOMES, |(|Decision and Order | |License Number 4423, Class D-12; |(| | | |(| | |and |(| | | |(| | |KEITH EDMOND DOUGLAS, d.b.a. K. &|(| | |E. SERVICES, License Number 6650,|(| | |Class I-10C, |(| | | |(| | |Respondents. |(| | | |(| |

HEARING: March 18th, 1998, shortly past 9:00 a.m. Appearances: The Complainant, Mr. W. Dennis Brown, appeared in his own behalf. Respondent, Apache Trailer Sales, d.b.a. Mission View Homes, was represented by Mr. Mark Brill, owner and corporate officer. Respondent Keith Edmond Douglas, d.b.a. K. & E. Services, was represented by Mr. Keith Edmond Douglas. Administrative Law Judge: Grant Winston.

This matter came on for administrative hearing on Wednesday, March 18th, 1998. The Complainant, Mr. W. Dennis Brown, represented himself. Respondent Apache Trailer Sales, d.b.a. Mission View Homes, was represented by Mr. Mark Brill, owner and corporate officer. Respondent Keith Edmond Douglas, d.b.a. K. & E. Services, was represented by Mr. Keith Edmond Douglas. Testimony was taken and other evidence admitted and, based on the record taken as a whole, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made.

. . .

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1. The Complainant herein purchased a manufactured home from Respondent Mission View Homes in early 1997. The home was installed by Respondent K. & E. Services on April 22nd, 1997. The manufacturer of the home is Redman Homes, Inc., Lic. No. 5120. Redman Homes, Inc., originally a party Respondent to this action, was dismissed from the case by order of Mr. Daniel A. Gray, Assistant Director, Department of Building and Fire Safety, by written order dated January 22nd, 1998.

2. Following a discussion amongst the parties, off the record and without the presence of the Administrative Law Judge, just prior to the call of this case, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

3. On the record, the parties testified that the terms of the settlement agreement dispose of all their outstanding differences which were the subject of this administrative Citation and Complaint. They further testified that the settlement agreement was their knowing and voluntary action, and that they understood and agreed that upon the agency’s approval and adoption of their settlement agreement that all rights and defenses would merge into the agreement, and that any future hearing in this matter would be limited to issues over fulfillment of the terms of the agreement. The settlement agreement is not unconscionable.

4. As to the terms of the settlement between Complainant and Respondent K. & E. Services, it is found that all items of the Citation and Complaint are agreed by those parties to have been satisfactorily resolved, as evidenced by Complainant’s Exhibit 1, of record.

5. As to the terms of the settlement agreement between Complainant and Respondent Mission View Homes, it is found that almost all the items of the Citation and Complaint are agreed by those parties to have been satisfactorily resolved pursuant to a monetary settlement, save Item #43 (the door jamb), and Item #65 (the electric issue), and pursuant to the settlement agreement these two parties have agreed and accepted that Mission View shall satisfactorily resolve those two items within ten days from the date of the hearing. The settlement agreement between these two parties is evidenced by Complainant’s Exhibit 2, of record.

Conclusions of Law

1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §41- 2183 and A.R.S. §41-1092.

2. A general policy of law favors settlements of disputes by and between adverse parties, and those 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 by the parties during the hearing of this matter, warrants dismissal of this action as settled.

Recommended Order

Wherefore, it is hereby recommended that the settlement agreement between the parties be adopted, and Case No. 97-8-123, be dismissed, without prejudice, as settled, and that any future re-opening of the case be limited to any issue(s) of fulfillment of the settlement agreement.

Dated this 23rd day of March, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this ____ day of March, 1998, to:

N. Eric Borg, Director Building and Fire Safety Attn.: Gail Hinckley E. Virginia, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Transmitted by:

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