ALJDEC

99F-0518-ROC-com · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-09-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 1, 1999 APPEARANCES: Complainant did not appear at the hearing; Eugene Petrovits, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Lewis D. Kowal _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Mark Lord (“Complainant”) did not present any evidence during the hearing in support of his complaint that Steven Hedgpeth (“Respondent”) failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement entered into between the parties concerning this matter. 2. Registrar of Contractors Inspector Joseph Cotton testified that he performed an inspection of Complainant’s residence on August 27, 1999. At that time, Complainant represented to Inspector Cotton that Respondent has complied with all of his obligations under the above-mentioned settlement agreement with the exception of the skylights. 3. During the above-mentioned inspection, Inspector Cotton observed that the skylights in question had in certain areas elastomeric roof coating material. Inspector Cotton did not observe any stucco spatter on any of the skylights in question although he did observe stucco spray finish on some of the skylights. Inspector Cotton testified that he learned from Complainant that the stucco finish was applied by a contractor other than the Respondent. 4. Complainant claimed that, pursuant to the terms of the above- mentioned settlement agreement, Respondent was responsible for the removal of the material on the skylights that was observed by Inspector Cotton. 5. Steven Hedgpath testified that on April 28, 1999, Respondent performed remedial work in accordance with the above-mentioned settlement agreement and cleaned stucco spatter off of several skylights. According to Mr. Hedgpath, after such work, the skylights in question did not have any stucco spatter but had roofing material on them which was not removed. 6. The evidence of record establishes that the stucco spatter that the Respondent removed from the skylights was gray in color. The evidence further shows that the material currently on the skylights is of a different color than that of the stucco spatter. 7. The testimony of Inspector Cotton and Mr. Hedgpath, as set forth above, is determined to be credible. 8. Complainant failed to present any evidence to refute or rebut the testimony presented by the Respondent. 9. The evidence of record establishes that Respondent has complied with all of the terms of the above-mentioned settlement agreement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Complainant, by not appearing at the hearing, fails to sustain his burden of proving that Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the above-mentioned settlement agreement and Respondent establishes compliance.

RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the above, and in light of the lack of prosecution by Complainant, it is recommended that this matter be closed. Done this day, September 2, 1999

______________________________________ Lewis D. Kowal Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 1999, to:

Registrar of Contractors Michael P. Goldwater 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

ATTN: Joyce Armijo

By ___________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826