ALJDEC

98F-T0266-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-07-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

| |§| | |RICHARD DARDANO, |§|CASE NO.: T98-0266 | | |§| | |Complainant, |§|DOCKET NO.: 98F-T0266-ROC | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No. 90489, Class B- of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |MICHAEL S. BARR CORPORATION, |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: Tuesday, July 7, 1998. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through his attorney, Allan Duprey. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Richard Block. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on July 7, 1998. The Complainant appeared through his attorney, Allan Duprey, and the Respondent appeared through its attorney, Richard Block. 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 Complainant purchased a new residence constructed by the Respondent.

3. Following a recess at the scheduled hearing, the parties concluded a settlement agreement, the essential terms of which were stated for the record.

4. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, the Respondent agreed to stipulate that it had performed unlicensed plumbing work, which it considered to be an emergency requirement, during the construction of the Complainant’s residence.

5. The Respondent filed a written statement, for the record, which states, in part, as follows: “The licensed site work contractor excavated the trenches from the sewer line to the residence. He was unable to return timely to lay in the sewer lines. We were faced with open ditches that presented a serious safety hazard. We did put up the necessary safeguards. However, on Thursday, August 25, 1994, with a weekend ahead and the unsafe condition existing we felt it was imperative that that we install the short sewer line and back-fill the trench. This was done under the supervision of a member of our corporation, who had held a plumbing license for many years. The work was inspected by the County Inspector prior to back-filling and approved on Friday August 26, 1994. (A copy of the Respondent’s written statement is attached hereto.)

6. In exchange for the Respondent’s admission and written statement, the Complainant agreed to withdraw his complaint and to request a dismissal of this matter.

7. 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. T98- 0266 be dismissed.

It is further recommended the Respondent be admonished that performing plumbing work is beyond the scope of the Respondent’s Class B License and that all such work should be performed by a licensed contractor even in near-emergency type situations.

The undisputed fact that this was a near-emergency type of situation and that the Respondent’s actions alleviated a very obvious health and safety matter are factors considered in mitigation in this recommendation.

Dated this 10th day of July, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of July, 1998 to:

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

Transmitted by:

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