Category Archives: HOA Cases

Allan, Joseph P v. The Springs Condominiums Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-03-31
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joseph P. Allan Counsel —
Respondent The Springs Condominiums Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner met his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A). Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, and Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide access to financial and other records within ten business days.

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to allow Petitioner to examine original invoices for May 2024 (requested July 9, 2024) and bank statements from four accounts (requested September 23, 2024) within the required ten business days, despite receiving the requests through board members.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) going forward. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, records request, A.R.S. 33-1258, prevailing party, condominium association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Decision Documents

25F-H018-REL Decision – 1263777.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:43 (48.3 KB)

25F-H018-REL Decision – 1288586.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:44 (105.9 KB)

Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H022-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-03-27
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Miera Phx LLC Counsel —
Respondent Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 17, 6.1, 6.2, 5; Bylaws Articles I, Section 3; Article VI, Section 3(b); Article IX, Section 2

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated the cited documents or statutes, as the ALJ determined the complaint was fundamentally a dispute regarding violations committed by individual unit owners (a homeowner vs. homeowner argument).

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes, particularly noting that the Association cannot violate the Use & Occupancy restrictions cited, only a homeowner can. The statute regarding monetary penalties uses 'may' (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(11)), indicating discretion, not a mandatory duty enforceable as a violation against the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's failure to enforce CC&Rs prohibiting transient/short-term rentals and managing parking/common areas misuse

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce restrictions prohibiting short-term rentals (under 30 days) and misused parking/common areas by transient guests, citing conflicts of interest among Board members operating STRs.

Orders: Petition denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(11)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Dartmouth Trace CC&Rs Section 17
  • Dartmouth Trace Bylaws Article VI Section 3(b)

Decision Documents

25F-H022-REL Decision – 1264772.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:52 (66.0 KB)

25F-H022-REL Decision – 1275713.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:53 (49.9 KB)

25F-H022-REL Decision – 1275762.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:53 (8.3 KB)

25F-H022-REL Decision – 1287568.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:53 (182.8 KB)

25F-H022-REL Decision – 1318865.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:53 (56.7 KB)

Debbie Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H029-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-03-12
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Debbie Westerman Counsel —
Respondent Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association Counsel Mark Lines

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the documents Petitioner requested—specifically bills issued by Respondent’s counsel—were privileged communications under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1). Because these documents were subject to the statutory exception, the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Respondent violated the records request statute. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation because the requested records fell under the attorney-client privilege exception defined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of member's right to examine financial records regarding legal fees.

Petitioner sought statements from the HOA's law firm (Shaw and Lines) from 2015 onward, specifically seeking the numerical amounts paid in legal fees. The HOA failed to respond within ten business days. The HOA argued the requested bills were privileged communications and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1).

Orders: Respondent was deemed the prevailing party in this matter.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records request, HOA records, condominium act, privileged communication, attorney-client privilege, legal fees
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1)

Decision Documents

25F-H029-REL Decision – 1282218.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:02 (95.6 KB)

Millard C. and Samantha Finch v. Mountain Gate Community aka Copper

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H017-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-03
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Samantha and Millard C. Finch Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioners' Dispute Petition, concluding that Petitioners failed to prove any errors in the administration or rejection of evidence or errors of law during the previous administrative hearing, which was the sole basis for the rehearing.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of proof to show procedural or evidentiary errors as required by the limited scope of the rehearing granted by the Department of Real Estate. Arguments focused on disagreement with the findings of the original decision, which were outside the scope.

Key Issues & Findings

Error in the administration or rejection of evidence or other errors occurring during the proceeding

The rehearing was limited to determining if errors occurred during the previous proceeding regarding the admission or rejection of evidence or errors of law. Petitioners alleged improper use of A.R.S. § 33-1807 by the original ALJ and claimed their evidence was rejected or not considered. The ALJ found that Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioners' Dispute Petition is Dismissed. The underlying ALJ Decision is binding.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 33-1807
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Procedural Error, Evidence, A.R.S. 33-1807
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1807
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Decision Documents

25F-H017-REL Decision – 1316094.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:41 (51.5 KB)

25F-H017-REL Decision – 1325522.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:41 (120.7 KB)

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-02-20
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deatta M. Pleasants Counsel —
Respondent Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel David Onuschak

Alleged Violations

CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2. Maintenance and Repair, By the Association

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&Rs by the Association. The Association maintained the underground culverts in accordance with Navajo County approved plans, and the evidence established the culverts were functioning as intended. Flooding experienced by the Petitioner was expected due to the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during an exceptional storm (likely a 100-year event).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&R provision; the culverts were maintained and functioning as intended, and flooding was anticipated given the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during the exceptional storm event.

Key Issues & Findings

The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to repair or connect a culvert (common area), causing her lot located in a regulatory floodway to flood during a severe (100-year) storm in July 2021. The Respondent contended the drainage system was maintained, functioned as intended, and the flooding was due to the exceptional storm magnitude and the property's location in a floodway.

Orders: No action required of Respondent; Petitioner's Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Maintenance Violation, Drainage System, Culvert Maintenance, FEMA Floodway, 100-Year Storm, Civil Engineer Testimony
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2
  • CC&Rs Rev. September 2022, Article 1, D.

Decision Documents

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1252432.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:48 (52.5 KB)

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1275219.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:48 (128.4 KB)

The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995 v.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H049-REL, 24F-H055-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-01-21
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995 Counsel —
Respondent The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association Counsel Daryl Wilson

Alleged Violations

Declaration §§ 7.1, 7.12, 7.14
Declaration §§ 4.6.1, 4.6.2
Declaration §§ 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.13
A.R.S. § 33-1248(E), (F)
Declaration § 5.1

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding issues 2 (Puppy Potty) and 4 (Notice/Agenda). Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner a filing fee refund of $1,000 and a Civil Penalty of $500 for Issue 2. Respondent prevailed on Issues 1, 3, and 5.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on Issues 1, 3, and 5, often due to the Board's discretion being upheld (budget, maintenance pace) or failure to establish the circumstances constituted an actionable nuisance (news crew).

Key Issues & Findings

Inadequate budget and funding of reserves; improper withdrawal of reserve funds.

Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly borrowed reserves (~$390k) for operating expenses and failed to adopt an adequate budget for reserves. The Tribunal found the budget practices required only a reasonable estimate and that the reserve contributions had exceeded recommended levels as of July 2024.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 7.1
  • Declaration § 7.12
  • Declaration § 7.14

Installation of 'puppy potty' on common elements.

Petitioner sought removal of a puppy potty installed on the roof (a common element) arguing it violated rules prohibiting pet structures on common elements and constituted a nuisance. The Tribunal found the puppy potty was a structure for the care of pets on common elements, violating Section 4.6.2.

Orders: Respondent is directed to remove the puppy potty structure, and a Civil Penalty of $500 is imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 4.6.1
  • Declaration § 4.6.2

Allowing news crew use of common area.

Petitioner contested the HOA allowing a news crew in the common pool area during the 2023 baseball post-season. The Tribunal found the Declaration permits invitees (guests) and failed to establish the presence of the news crew was unreasonable, offensive, or infringed upon owner easements.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 3.3.1
  • Declaration § 3.3.2
  • Declaration § 4.13

Failure to provide required notice and adequate information in agendas.

Petitioner alleged the HOA agendas failed to provide adequate information for meaningful resident comments, specifically concerning non-emergency topics like purchasing patio furniture. The Tribunal found evidence that the Board failed to include at least one non-emergency topic on the agenda.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1248 and its Community Documents going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)

Failure to maintain, repair, and replace Common Elements (structural damage/garage cracks).

Petitioner sought enforcement of maintenance obligations due to perceived slow pace (years of delay) in addressing structural cracks and water infiltration in the garage ceiling. The Tribunal acknowledged delays but noted the Board had engaged experts and was following their recommendations for monitoring and testing before the decision date.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 5.1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condo, Reserves, Budget, Pets, Common Elements, Board Meetings, Notice, Structural Integrity
Additional Citations:

  • Declaration § 7.1
  • Declaration § 7.12
  • Declaration § 7.14
  • Declaration § 4.6.1
  • Declaration § 4.6.2
  • Declaration § 3.3.1
  • Declaration § 3.3.2
  • Declaration § 4.13
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)
  • Declaration § 5.1

Decision Documents

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1214040.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:15 (45.7 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1218977.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:15 (46.3 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1218981.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (5.9 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1219895.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (40.5 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1235253.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (47.1 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1264402.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (277.9 KB)

Cross Creek Ranch Community Association v. Turquoise Textures, LLC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H005-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-12-16
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Cross Creek Ranch Community Association Counsel —
Respondent Turquoise Textures, LLC Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1.3; Article 7, Section 7.5

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition filed by the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association, finding that Turquoise Textures, LLC violated CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1.3 and Article 7, Section 7.5 by clear cutting old growth trees and vegetation in violation of approved plans. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with governing documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by clear cutting old growth trees and vegetation contrary to approved plans.

Petitioner alleged Respondent clear cut approximately 30 old growth trees and native vegetation, violating approved plans and governing documents, and presenting a nuisance. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner sustained its burden of proof that Respondent violated the Association’s governing documents, regardless of whether Respondent directed the general contractor, and granted the petition.

Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA violations, ARC approval, clear cutting, landscaping, governing documents, filing fee reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Decision Documents

25F-H005-REL Decision – 1246254.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:38 (51.8 KB)

25F-H005-REL Decision – 1252576.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:38 (148.6 KB)

25F-H005-REL Decision – 1252586.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:38 (55.1 KB)

Keystone Owners Association V. Bernadette M. Bennett

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-12-09
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keystone Owners Association Counsel Erica L. Mortenson
Respondent Bernadette M. Bennett Counsel Thomas A. Walcott

Alleged Violations

Mountain Park Association CC&Rs Art. IV, Sec. 2; Keystone CC&Rs Art. V, Sec. 5.19; Rules (35% Frontage Limit)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed. The Respondent (Homeowner) was found in violation of Governing Documents for installing an unapproved driveway extension that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the $1,500.00 filing fee and comply with all Governing Documents henceforth. No civil penalty was levied.

Why this result: Respondent failed to obtain prior written approval for the driveway alteration and failed to prove the affirmative defense of laches.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Driveway Extension Exceeding 35% of Total Yard Frontage Area

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by installing a driveway extension exceeding 35% of the total yard frontage area without prior written approval. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred and the Respondent failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $1,500.00 for the filing fee and comply henceforth with the Governing Documents.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, ARC, Driveway, Frontage Area, CC&Rs, Laches
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Decision Documents

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1159036.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (52.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180542.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (49.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180545.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198622.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (50.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198623.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1225107.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (52.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227639.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (48.7 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227642.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (5.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1230660.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (45.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1241815.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (48.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1250037.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (113.0 KB)

R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H001-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-11-12
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner R.L. Whitmer Counsel —
Respondent Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners Counsel Emily H. Mann

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found the Respondent HOA in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) for failing to contain the name of the association in the Declaration. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Declaration requirements for naming the condominium and association.

Petitioner claimed the Declaration failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) because it lacked the formal name of the association. Respondent argued the existing reference to the 'Council of Co-owners' was sufficient because case law established the current association was the successor entity. The Tribunal found the Declaration did not contain the name of the association as required.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days and shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-550
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(15)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1219(A)
  • London v Carrick
  • Schaefer v Pro Keanti AZ2 LP
  • Eli v Cro County A

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium Act, Declaration, Statute of Limitations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-550
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(15)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1219(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • London v Carrick
  • Schaefer v Pro Keanti AZ2 LP
  • Eli v Cro County A

Decision Documents

25F-H001-REL Decision – 1235116.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:34 (44.0 KB)

25F-H001-REL Decision – 1241814.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:35 (115.8 KB)

AZNH Revocable Trust V. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H047-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-11-05
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner AZNH Revocable Trust Counsel John F. Sullivan
Respondent Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was in compliance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(7) by providing the electronic data lists received from the voting vendor (Vote HOA Now), as the statute requires storage of 'electronic votes' not necessarily 'electronic ballots' (images).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide voting records (electronic ballots) for inspection

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to provide all voting materials, specifically images of each actual online ballot, in response to the February 28, 2024, inspection request, arguing this violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Voting Records, Electronic Voting, HOA Records Inspection, Statutory Interpretation, ARS 33-1812
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04

Decision Documents

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1240168.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:12 (184.8 KB)

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1330098.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:12 (48.9 KB)

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1330115.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:12 (6.2 KB)