ALJDEC

99F-T0762-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-01-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_____________________________________________________________________ HEARING: December 16, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on December 16, 1999. The Complainant appeared on his own behalf and the Respondent appeared on his own behalf. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of a Class B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent performed construction work as a general contractor for the construction of a new residence for the Complainant.

3. The Respondent performed site preparation work, concrete work and some framing work on the new residence. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the workmanship of the concrete and framing and complained to the Respondent. The parties then had a very heated dispute regarding the terms of their construction agreement and the Respondent left the job- site. 4. The Respondent then declined to return to the job-site and resume construction work unless the Complainant agreed to alter the parties’ original construction agreement. 5. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to complete his construction work despite repeated requests that he do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 6. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to return and continue the residential construction project in accordance with all agreements, contracts, prints, plans, specification, manufacturer’s instructions, and in accordance with minimum workmanship standards and code requirements. 7. The Respondent was not able to gain access to the job-site and the Registrar then moved to close the case. The Complainant objected to the proposed closure and the matter was referred to formal hearing. 8. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that portions of the concrete and framing work, as completed by the Respondent, failed to comply with applicable minimum workmanship standards and did require proper correction by the Respondent. 9. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent’s actions in leaving the job-site and failing to complete the project following the heated dispute with the Complainant were unjustified and constitute a wrongful act. 10. Credible evidence established that the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein the Respondent agreed to pay the sum of $10,000.00 to the Complainant and the Complainant agreed to move to dismiss his complaint with the Registrar of Contractors upon receipt of the $10,000.00. 11. There was no dispute that the parties’ settlement agreement was knowingly and voluntarily entered into. 12. The Respondent did not pay the agreed upon sum of $10,000.00 to the Complainant as set forth in parties’ settlement agreement and, consequently, the Complainant did not move to withdraw his complaint against the Respondent. 13. The Respondent’s actions in failing to comply with the terms of his settlement agreement with the Complainant are found to constitute a wrongful act. 14. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (7) (Wrongful Act), and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108. 2. A general policy of law and the Registrar of Contractors favors settlements of disputes and adverse parties should be free to adjust their differences by entry into settlement agreements which should be then recognized and given effect by all tribunals. 3. The parties’ settlement agreement is found to be valid and binding upon both the Respondent and the Complainant.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class B- License be revoked unless the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly paid the sum of $10,000.00 to the Complainant as required by the parties’ settlement agreement. It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the above described corrective action, on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License revocation shall not take place and Citation No. T99-0762 shall be closed. Done this 5th day, January, 2000.

______________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of January, 2000, to:

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

By _______________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488