Case Details
– Petitioner: Clifford (Norm) Burnes and Maria Burnes
– Respondent: Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association
– Case Number: Not specified
– Date and Time of Hearing: December 11, 2020, at 1:00 PM; March 1, 2021, at 9:00 AM; March 3, 2021, at 9:00 AM
– Judge’s Name: Jenna Clark
– Petitioner Success: Partially successful
Case Description
This case involves a dispute arising from actions taken by the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association in Tucson, Arizona, concerning various grievances raised by homeowners Clifford (Norm) and Maria Burnes against the Association.
The Petitioners Filed Their Grievance On July 17, 2020, Asserting Four Main Issues
1. Alleged improper construction on Lot 7 without the Architectural Review Committee’s (ARC) approval.
2. Allegation that the construction took place without posting the required Construction Compliance Deposit.
3. Involvement of the Board of Directors in a meeting that was not properly noticed to consider matters concerning Petitioner Norm Burnes.
4. Failure of the Association to adequately respond to a records request made by the Petitioners.
The Respondent denied all claims on August 11, 2020, which led to the case being forwarded to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
The hearings took place over several sessions where both Petitioners and Respondent presented testimonies and evidence, including documentation regarding the construction on Lot 7, the complaint procedures within the Association, and the stipulations of the Arizona Revised Statutes concerning homeowners’ associations.
During the process, evidence indicated that the ARC had previously approved the construction plans for Lot 7 and that the construction met local building authority standards. The issue of whether a waiver for the Construction Compliance Deposit was granted was contested, as no formal documentation supporting the waiver existed in the Association’s records.
Petitioners also argued that the Board conducted an unnoticed closed meeting which violated the state’s open meeting laws. However, the ruling determined that while the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof regarding issues 1-3, they did successfully argue that the Respondent had violated Arizona law concerning their records request (Issue 4).
As A Result Of These Findings, The Administrative Law Judge Ordered The Following
– The Petitioners’ claims concerning the CC&Rs and the open meeting violations were denied.
– The Petitioners’ claims regarding the failure to accommodate their records request were upheld, requiring the Respondent to provide the sought documents, including missing email attachments, and to reimburse a portion of the Petitioners’ filing fee.
The Order further indicated that Respondent must comply with Arizona Revised Statutes regarding member records availability, solidifying the necessity for transparency and adherence to statutory obligations by homeowners’ associations.
Thus, while the Petitioners were only partially successful, they managed to secure an affirmation of their rights to access information pertinent to their grievances against the Association.
Legal Advice & Recommendations
Based on the detailed information provided regarding the case involving Clifford (Norm) and Maria Burnes as Petitioners against Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association as Respondent, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioners won on one issue but lost on the other three issues.
Analysis Of The Findings
1. **Issue 1 – Violation Of Cc&Rs Section 5**
The Petitioners argued that construction took place on Lot 7 without required approvals from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). However, evidence indicated that the construction plans had indeed been approved by the ARC. The Judge found that the ARC lacks the ability to review or deny plans after they have been submitted and approved, and no contravention of CC&Rs was established. Therefore, the Petitioners lost this issue.
2. **Issue 2 – Violation Of Community Agricultural Design Guidelines Section 4.0**
The argument centered on whether the Association improperly waived the construction compliance deposit requirement. The Judge noted the absence of documented evidence of the waiver, but concluded that it was moot since the Association has the discretionary authority to waive fees. Thus, again, the Petitioners lost this issue.
3. **Issue 3 – Violation Of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), And (E)**
Petitioners claimed that the Board held an unnoticed meeting. The Judge found no violation since the Board’s failure to provide notice was excused as it was an urgent matter, and there were no legal or statutory violations by restricting the Petitioner’s participation in further discussions about Lot 7. Again, Petitioners lost this issue.
4. **Issue 4 – Violation Of A.R.S. § 33-1805**
Petitioners argued that the Association violated record-keeping laws by failing to respond timely and completely to their requests for documents. The Judge concluded that the Association did not comply with the ten-business day requirement for provision of records, affirming a violation. Hence, the Petitioners won this issue.
Recommendations For The Petitioners
1. Document Everything: The Petitioners should ensure they have thorough records of all communications, decisions, and design submissions made to and by the ARC. Having comprehensive documentation could strengthen their position.
2. Clear and Concise Requests: In the future, when submitting records requests, it’s beneficial to make them as clear and concise as possible to minimize the potential for claims of vagueness from the Association.
3. Seek Early Resolution or Mediation: Before escalating issues to a hearing, they may want to consider dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, especially for disputes regarding perceived violations of CC&Rs. This could help save time and legal costs.
4. Maintain Vigilance on Future Construction: As part of the HOA, staying engaged in community meetings and ensuring that all construction complies with established guidelines is essential. They should advocate for compliance in maintaining neighborhood standards and aesthetic considerations.
Additional Advice
For homeowners facing similar issues, it’s crucial to know your rights under Arizona law, specifically ARS 33-1804 regarding open meeting laws and 33-1805 related to records requests. Engaging in the processes established by the HOA and being proactive can help mitigate disputes down the line. Always consult legal counsel when drafting formal communications or filing complaints to navigate the specifics of your case effectively.