ALJDEC

99F-1886-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-09-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 22, 1999 APPEARANCES: Complainants appeared on their own behalf and Respondent appeared through its owner and qualifying party, Adrian Barraza. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Mark A. Silver _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Following a prolonged discussion between the parties, subsequent to commencing the instant hearing, the parties concluded a settlement agreement, the essential terms of which were read upon the record.

2. Pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned settlement agreement, Respondent agreed to accomplish the following items of remedial work on or before November 1, 1999:

a. Respondent will install “blown-in” insulation in all walls of the home where the required insulation was omitted. In addition, insulation will be blown into the common wall between the home and the garage. Respondent will not have to insert any insulation into the exterior walls of the garage. It is important to note that any holes, previously made by Complainants in walls in order to demonstrate that said walls did not have insulation, must be properly repaired by Respondent. However, any holes caused by Complainants in walls that were found to have insulation will not be repaired by Respondent. b. Respondent has previously patched cracks in four specified sections of the driveway and, due to the fact that said patch work is substandard, Respondent must re-do the patching in said areas. In this regard, Respondent will remove the original patch material and grind down any patch material that was smeared onto the areas adjacent to the crack. The new patch work must be neat and provide an appropriate color blend with the original concrete work. Any continued failure of this patching procedure to provided a proper workmanlike repair will require Respondent to remove and replace the concrete in said areas. c. Respondent will replace 12 broken tiles and repair the broken mortar edges in the front entry area.

3. Complainants agreed to accept the linen closet “as-is” and to withdraw the filed complaint against Respondent.

4. The parties agreed that all rights and defenses were to be merged into the settlement agreement and if any petition for rehearing of this matter was to be filed and granted, or if any new complaint was filed, the sole issues for determination shall be whether the parties have performed their respective obligations under the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreement.

5. The terms of the forgoing settlement appeared to be reasonable under all the circumstances and the agreement was determined to be the product of knowing and voluntary action on the part of each party. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The policy of the law favors settlements of disputes and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into agreements or stipulations of settlement which should be recognized and given effect by all tribunals.

2. The settlement reached and submitted during the hearing of this matter, having been found to be reasonable and voluntarily made, warrants the termination of the instant hearing. RECOMMENDATION

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Citation No. 99- 1886, together with the Complaint upon which it is based, be closed.

Done this day, September 22, 1999

______________________________________ Mark A. Silver Administrative Law Judge

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

Registrar of Contractors Mr. Michael P. Goldwater ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

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

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