Briefing Document: Collis v. Laveen Meadows HOA (Case No. 19F-H18020-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H18020-REL, involving Petitioner Jerry R. Collis and Respondent Laveen Meadows HOA. The central issue was a series of violation notices and fines issued by the HOA to Mr. Collis regarding his vehicle.

The petition, filed by Mr. Collis, was ultimately dismissed. The Judge ruled that Mr. Collis failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the Laveen Meadows HOA had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or any applicable statutes.

The core of Mr. Collis’s argument was that the HOA wrongly cited him for having an “inoperable vehicle” under CC&R Section 10.11.4, when his vehicle was, in fact, always in operating condition. However, the Judge’s decision rested on the finding that the HOA’s actions were based on multiple violations. While all seven violation notices were titled “Inoperable Vehicle,” evidence and testimony confirmed the vehicle was also in violation of CC&R Section 10.16 (Nuisances) due to its unsightly condition (cobwebs, debris, a flat tire, and a covered window) and Section 10.11.2 (Parking on streets). Because the citations were justified by these other violations, Mr. Collis’s claim regarding the vehicle’s operability was insufficient to invalidate the HOA’s actions.

——————————————————————————–

1. Case Overview

The matter was brought before the Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by Jerry R. Collis with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on September 17, 2018. A hearing was held on December 4, 2018, to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Collis and the Laveen Meadows HOA.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H18020-REL

Petitioner

Jerry R. Collis

Respondent

Laveen Meadows HOA

Administrative Law Judge

Thomas Shedden

Hearing Date

December 4, 2018

Decision Date

December 20, 2018

——————————————————————————–

2. Central Arguments and Positions

Petitioner’s Position (Jerry R. Collis)

• Mr. Collis’s primary contention was that the HOA improperly issued citations alleging his vehicle was “inoperable” in violation of CC&R Section 10.11.4.

• He testified that the vehicle was never inoperable.

• Although his initial petition stated the HOA violated Section 10.11.4, he clarified at the hearing that the issue was the HOA wrongly cited him for violating that provision.

Respondent’s Position (Laveen Meadows HOA)

• The HOA, represented by Community Manager Lisa Riesland, argued that the citations were based on more than just the “inoperable vehicle” clause.

• The HOA asserted that Mr. Collis’s vehicle was in violation of three separate CC&R sections:

◦ Section 10.11.2: Prohibiting parking on streets.

◦ Section 10.11.4: Prohibiting non-operating motor vehicles in unenclosed parking areas.

◦ Section 10.16: Prohibiting nuisances, defined to include “unsightly” conditions or those that could “reasonably cause annoyance to other members of the Association.”

——————————————————————————–

3. Analysis of Evidence and Findings of Fact

The Judge’s decision was based on testimony and a series of seven notifications sent by the HOA to Mr. Collis between September 2016 and June 2017.

Violation Notices

• A total of seven notifications/letters were sent to Mr. Collis regarding his vehicle.

• All seven notices included the identical violation description: “Violation: Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle.”

• Critically, none of the notices cited a specific CC&R section number that was allegedly violated.

• The letters also made reference to “cobwebs and debris on or beneath the vehicle.”

Vehicle Condition and Nuisance Violation

• Unsightliness: Lisa Riesland provided credible testimony that at various times, the vehicle had cobwebs extending from the chassis to the ground with leaves trapped within them. This was deemed to constitute an “unsightly condition” under CC&R Section 10.16.

• Vandalism and Disrepair: At the time of the June 2017 notices, the vehicle also had a flat tire and a window covered with a bag or cardboard. Mr. Collis acknowledged these facts, explaining they were the result of vandalism.

Chronology of Violations, Fines, and Appeals

The document outlines a series of escalating fines. In each instance where a fine was issued, Mr. Collis was informed of his right to appeal to the HOA Board and his right to request an administrative hearing.

Action by HOA

Fine/Fee Charged

Evidence of Appeal by Mr. Collis

Sep 19, 2016

Notification of violation (expired tags, inoperable vehicle on street).

Not applicable

Oct 11, 2016

Notification of potential $25 fine if not corrected.

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

Dec 1, 2016

Letter informing a $25 fine had been charged.

$25.00

Mr. Collis appealed to the Board.

Jan 26, 2017

Letter from Board informing Mr. Collis his appeal was denied.

Appeal outcome. No evidence of hearing request.

Apr 20, 2017

Letter informing a $50 fine and $10 mailing fee had been charged.

$60.00

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

May 9, 2017

Letter informing a $100 fine and $10 mailing fee had been charged.

$110.00

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

May 23, 2017

Letter informing a $100 fine and $10 mailing fee had been charged.

$110.00

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

June 8, 2017

Letter informing a $100 fine and $10 mailing fee had been charged.

$110.00

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

June 26, 2017

Letter informing a $100 fine and $10 mailing fee had been charged.

$110.00

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

——————————————————————————–

4. Legal Rationale and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s ruling centered on the burden of proof and the contractual nature of the CC&Rs.

Burden of Proof

• Mr. Collis, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

• A preponderance of the evidence is defined as evidence with the “most convincing force” that is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Core Legal Conclusion

• The Judge concluded that the evidence demonstrated the HOA issued citations based on violations of CC&R Sections 10.11.2 (street parking), 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicle), and 10.16 (nuisance).

• Because the violations were multifaceted, Mr. Collis’s singular focus on the vehicle’s operability was insufficient to prove the HOA acted improperly.

• The decision states: “Consequently, showing that his vehicle was in operating condition would not be sufficient to show that the citations were unwarranted.”

• The Judge found that Mr. Collis failed to show that the HOA violated any of its CC&Rs, community documents, or the statutes regulating planned communities.

Final Order

• IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jerry R. Collis’s petition is dismissed.

• The Respondent, Laveen Meadows HOA, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

• The order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.