Case Summary
| Case ID | 23F-H058-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2023-10-04 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | John R. Ashley | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC | Counsel | James Brewer, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner John R. Ashley's petition against Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. The ALJ found that the HOA did not violate the Bylaws regarding the minimum number of directors because compliance was impossible due to lack of member interest, and the issue was subsequently moot as the board currently met the minimum requirement.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut Respondent’s claim that it actively sought a third board member. The Respondent was exonerated under the legal doctrine of impossibility of performance, and the current compliance with the three-member minimum rendered the dispute moot.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation regarding the minimum number of Board Directors
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws by having only two Board Directors dismiss and order a redo of the 1/9/2023 Annual Membership Meeting for 3/7/2023, arguing that three directors were required to properly handle the Association’s affairs.
Orders: The petition is dismissed. Respondent was unable to comply with the Bylaws requiring three directors due to impossibility (lack of member interest) while actively seeking compliance, and the dispute is currently moot as the board now has three or more members.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803
- Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
- Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
- Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
- Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
- Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803
- Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
- Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
- Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
- Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
- Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)