Administrative Law Judge Decision: Martin v. SaddleBrooke HOA #1

Executive Summary

The petition filed by Tom J. Martin against the SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. was dismissed by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The core of the decision rests on a strict interpretation of Arizona state law, which limits the hearing office’s authority to violations of formally defined “community documents.”

Mr. Martin’s primary grievance was the HOA’s alleged failure to provide and fund pickleball courts as advertised on its website and outlined in an internal policy document (Policy BC-3). However, the ALJ found that neither an HOA’s website nor its internal policies qualify as “community documents” under the statutory definition, which is restricted to the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, and rules. Mr. Martin’s attempt to equate “policy” with “rule” was deemed unpersuasive because the policy in question had not been formally adopted as a rule by the HOA.

Furthermore, the specific relief requested by Mr. Martin—a demand for $463,112.00, the construction of eight new courts, and mandated maintenance funding—was found to be outside the scope of the ALJ’s statutory authority to grant. The dismissal, issued as a result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

Case Background and Procedural History

This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in case number 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG, presided over by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden. The matter involved a dispute between Petitioner Tom J. Martin and Respondent SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

September 28, 2018

Mr. Martin filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 30, 2018

The HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, challenging the Department’s jurisdiction.

December 4, 2018

Mr. Martin filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss.

December 12, 2018

An Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, ordering the petition be dismissed.

December 31, 2018

Mr. Martin filed a request for a rehearing.

April 16, 2019

The rehearing was conducted.

May 10, 2019

The final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Requested Relief

Initial Petition Allegations

• The core of Mr. Martin’s petition, filed September 28, 2018, was the allegation that the SaddleBrooke HOA violated its website and its policy manual, specifically Policy Number BC-3.

• The central claim was that “the Association is in violation for not providing pickleball courts as advertised and marketed….”

• While Mr. Martin checked boxes on the petition form indicating violations of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, he did not identify any specific provisions of those documents in his initial filing.

Allegations on Rehearing

In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Martin attempted to amend his claim by alleging specific violations of formal community documents:

• He argued the HOA violated Bylaws article 4, section 6(3) by failing to implement policy BC-3.

• He alleged the HOA violated Articles of Incorporation Article XII by not providing pickleball as promised, which he tied back to the failure to implement policy BC-3.

Requested Relief

Mr. Martin sought significant remedies from the HOA, requesting that it either:

1. Provide financial support of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon; or

2. Provide eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year.

Additionally, he demanded that the HOA be held financially responsible for the maintenance of the pickleball courts in an amount equal to what it spent on eight tennis courts.

Respondent’s Jurisdictional Challenge

The SaddleBrooke HOA’s primary defense was a jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the petition fell outside the legal authority of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Limited Jurisdiction: The HOA contended that pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01, administrative hearings are limited to disputes regarding violations of “planned community documents” or applicable state statutes.

• Definition of “Community Documents”: The HOA cited ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2), which defines “community documents” as “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.”

• Exclusion of Policies and Websites: Based on this statutory definition, the HOA argued that its website and Policy BC-3 are not “community documents,” and therefore any alleged violation of them cannot be adjudicated in this forum.

• Authority to Grant Relief: The HOA also argued that the specific financial and construction-related relief Mr. Martin sought was not within the tribunal’s authority to grant.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Legal Rationale

The ALJ ultimately sided with the Respondent HOA and ordered the petition dismissed. The decision was based on a strict application of Arizona statutes governing planned communities and the administrative hearing process.

Conclusions of Law

1. Statutory Limitations: The judge affirmed that hearings under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) are restricted to alleged “violations of … planned community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate … planned communities.”

2. Definition of “Community Documents” is Controlling: The decision hinges on the explicit definition of “community documents” in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2). The judge noted that the tribunal must follow definitions provided by the legislature. The finding states: “This definition does not include a planned community’s statements of policy, statements on its website, or advertising and marketing material.”

3. A “Policy” is Not a “Rule”: Mr. Martin’s argument that a “policy” should be interpreted as a “rule” was found to be “not persuasive.” The judge found that the HOA had not formally adopted Policy BC-3 as a rule under the authority granted in its CC&Rs (section 4.5). Therefore, the policy could not be treated as an enforceable “community document.”

4. Petition’s Failure to Meet Requirements: Because Mr. Martin’s original petition only alleged violations of the website and the policy manual—neither of which are legally defined as community documents—the petition “does not meet the requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01(A).”

5. Relief Outside of Authority: The ALJ also concluded that the requested relief was “not within the scope of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority” as prescribed by A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. The statute allows an ALJ to order a party to abide by the documents at issue and levy civil penalties, but not to order large monetary payments for construction or specific performance of capital projects.

Final Order

• “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.”

• The decision, being the result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

• Any party wishing to appeal must file for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date of service of the order.