Category Archives: HOA Cases

MICHAEL J. STOLTENBERG v. RANCHO DEL ORO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-12
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Counsel Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 10-3842

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3842
  • 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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3842
  • 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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020059-REL-RHG Decision – 855028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:28 (139.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020059-REL/815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:31 (124.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG


Briefing on Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping at his property. The case was ultimately dismissed after an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing.

The core of the dispute centered on two key issues: the scope of “landscaping” services required by the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the Petitioner’s denial of access to his backyard. The Petitioner argued that the undefined term “landscaping” in the CC&Rs should be interpreted broadly to include maintenance of his private swimming pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.” Concurrently, he acknowledged keeping his backyard gate locked for liability reasons related to the pool, preventing the HOA’s contractor from performing any work.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The judge concluded that the HOA had made repeated, documented attempts to perform its duties, but was actively prevented from doing so by the Petitioner. Critically, the judge ruled that a reasonable interpretation of “landscaping,” supported by dictionary definitions and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ distinct licensing classifications for landscaping and swimming pool services, does not include the maintenance of a private pool and its associated mechanical equipment.

I. Case Overview

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

20F-H2020059-REL and 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Petitioner

Michael J. Stoltenberg (Homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ)

Respondent

Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA)

Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Dates

August 3, 2020 (Initial Hearing) and February 2, 2021 (Rehearing)

Final Disposition

Petition Dismissed (February 12, 2021)

II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about April 21, 2020, alleging the HOA acted in “bad faith” and failed to perform its duties in 2020. The core of his case was built on the following claims:

• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner alleged a violation of § 5.1 of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which mandates that the “Association shall maintain… landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” He also alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842, although this was not addressed at the hearing.

• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: The Petitioner contended that since the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the term should encompass all features on his lot. He specifically asserted that the HOA was responsible for maintaining:

◦ His swimming pool (referred to as a “water feature”), including the pump, filter, and chemicals.

◦ His unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.

◦ Walking paths that required staining.

◦ Replenishing decorative rock when it wears thin.

◦ The patio and all hardscape.

• Denial of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked for liability reasons” due to the pool. At the rehearing, he argued that the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule, which would have afforded him an opportunity to unlock the gate.

• Rehearing Claims: In his request for a rehearing, the Petitioner cited several grounds, including an abuse of discretion by the judge, errors in evidence, and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming hearing loss put him at a “severe disadvantage.” At the rehearing itself, he also asserted that the Respondent was “falsely representing themselves as an HOA” and did not have an elected Board.

III. Respondent’s Defense and Evidence

The HOA, represented by Nicole Payne, Esq., argued that it had fulfilled its obligations and that any failure to maintain the Petitioner’s backyard was due to his own actions.

• Consistent Maintenance of Front Yard: The HOA established that its contractor, Mowtown Landscape, had continuously maintained the Petitioner’s front yard since their contract began in January 2020.

• Denied Access to Backyard: The central defense was that the HOA’s contractor was repeatedly and deliberately denied access to the backyard. This was supported by substantial evidence:

◦ Testimony of Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): Mr. Baas testified that his crews were at the community every Wednesday and Thursday. He stated they knocked on the Petitioner’s door and left notes or business cards four or five times between January and March 2020.

◦ Testimony of Diana Crites (Property Manager): Ms. Crites presented a text message from Mr. Baas dated March 24, 2020, which read:

◦ Documentary Evidence: A photograph of the locked gate was submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Baas stating, “There is a lock on the gate going to the back yard and we were trying to see if they [sic] people inside the house wanted us to maintenance the back yard. No one ever answered or came to the door.”

• Scope of HOA Services: Ms. Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services (front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing of back yards, sprinkler system maintenance) and does not offer “concierge” services like maintaining potted plants or private pools. The community pool, she noted, is maintained by a different company entirely (Crystal Clear Pool Maintenance).

IV. Judicial Findings and Legal Rulings

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella found in favor of the Respondent in both the initial decision and the rehearing, ultimately dismissing the petition.

Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)

The initial petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The judge’s reasoning was:

1. Denial of Access: The Petitioner’s own admission, coupled with “credible, probative, and substantial evidence,” established that he had refused to allow the HOA access to his backyard since January 2020.

2. HOA Attempts: The evidence demonstrated that the HOA had attempted to access the yard on multiple occasions and was “specifically instructed in March 2020, that Respondent was not permitted to access Petitioner’s back yard.”

3. Scope of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.”

Rehearing Decision (February 12, 2021)

After the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, Judge Vanella again dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”

1. Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool, but “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent must do so.”

2. Definition of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the definitions of “landscaping” from various sources, including dictionaries, “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”

3. State Licensing as Key Differentiator: The most definitive part of the ruling relied on the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing classifications, which treat landscaping and pool maintenance as two separate and distinct services.

License Classification

Description & Relevance

R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (Formerly Landscaping and Irrigation Systems)

Allows for installation and repair of non-loadbearing concrete, patios, decorative walls, irrigation systems, and water features not attached to swimming pools. The classification specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for work on “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”

R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair

A separate license required “to service and perform minor repair of residential pools and accessories.”

The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services… the CC&Rs cannot reasonably be interpreted to include pool maintenance when it required Respondent to maintain landscaping.”

Judicial Recommendation

While ruling against the Petitioner, the judge offered a forward-looking, non-binding recommendation:

“…given that Petitioner is required to keep his gate secured due to having a pool, it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”






Study Guide – 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Case No. 20F-H2020059-REL

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Please answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.

1. Identify the Petitioner and Respondent in this case and describe the core issue of their dispute.

2. What specific provision of the governing documents did the Petitioner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, claim the Respondent violated?

3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what unique features did his property’s landscaping include, and what services did he believe the HOA was responsible for?

4. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?

5. What was the testimony of Diana Crites, the property manager, regarding the scope of standard landscaping services provided by the HOA?

6. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge deny the Petitioner’s initial petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?

7. For what primary reasons did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grant the Petitioner a rehearing?

8. In the rehearing, what external sources did the Administrative Law Judge consult to determine the definition of “landscaping”?

9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and who bears the responsibility for meeting it?

10. What was the final order issued after the rehearing on February 12, 2021, and what reasonable suggestion did the judge offer for future interactions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core dispute concerned the HOA’s alleged failure to maintain the landscaping on the Petitioner’s property as required by the community’s CC&Rs, specifically whether this obligation included maintaining the Petitioner’s private pool.

2. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent violated Section 5.1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section outlines the Association’s duties, including the maintenance of landscaping on individual lots outside of structures. The Petitioner also initially alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842.

3. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He contended that the HOA should be responsible for maintaining these features, including replenishing the rock in his front yard when it wore thin.

4. The landscaping contractor was unable to perform maintenance because the gate to the backyard was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the pool, and evidence showed that in March 2020, a woman at the residence explicitly told the landscapers she did not want anyone in the backyard.

5. Diana Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services, not “concierge” services. This includes front yard maintenance and mowing and blowing of backyards, but not maintaining potted plants, driveways, property-dividing walls, or individual homeowners’ pools.

6. The judge denied the petition because the evidence, including the Petitioner’s own admission, established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted the Respondent had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard.

7. The rehearing was granted for reasons outlined in the Petitioner’s rehearing request. These included claims of irregularity in the proceedings, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the original decision was not supported by evidence or was contrary to law. The Petitioner also cited ADA and privacy issues.

8. The Administrative Law Judge consulted various online dictionary definitions (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Law Insider). She also analyzed the license classifications from the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, specifically the R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license and the R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license.

9. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the proof must convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the governing documents.

10. The final order dismissed the Petitioner’s petition again, finding he failed to prove the HOA was obligated to maintain his pool. However, the judge suggested that it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times of its landscaping services going forward so the Petitioner could provide access while maintaining safety precautions.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay response for each prompt.

1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain who held the burden, what they were required to prove, and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that they failed to meet this burden in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

2. Discuss the role of access in the dispute between Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro HOA. How did the issue of the locked gate impact the initial ruling, and how did the Petitioner attempt to reframe this issue in the rehearing?

3. The interpretation of the word “landscaping” was central to the rehearing. Detail the Petitioner’s interpretation versus the conclusion reached by the Administrative Law Judge. What evidence and legal reasoning did the Judge use to support her conclusion that pool maintenance is not included in landscaping?

4. Trace the procedural history of this case, from the initial petition filing on April 21, 2020, to the final order after the rehearing. Identify the key events, the specific reasons cited for the rehearing, and the legal basis for the final dismissal.

5. Based on the testimony of Diana Crites and Rian Baas, describe the standard landscaping services provided by the Rancho Del Oro HOA and its contractor. How does this standard practice contrast with the specific and unique services the Petitioner demanded for his property?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or homeowners’ association.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), the state agency with jurisdiction over HOA dispute resolution petitions.

Homeowners’ Association. An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro HOA.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.

Petition

A formal written request filed with a court or administrative body to initiate a legal proceeding. Mr. Stoltenberg filed a petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the fact-finder that their claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Registrar of Contractors

The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating contractors. The ALJ referenced its license classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pools (R-6) to help define the scope of services.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG


Briefing on Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping at his property. The case was ultimately dismissed after an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing.

The core of the dispute centered on two key issues: the scope of “landscaping” services required by the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the Petitioner’s denial of access to his backyard. The Petitioner argued that the undefined term “landscaping” in the CC&Rs should be interpreted broadly to include maintenance of his private swimming pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.” Concurrently, he acknowledged keeping his backyard gate locked for liability reasons related to the pool, preventing the HOA’s contractor from performing any work.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The judge concluded that the HOA had made repeated, documented attempts to perform its duties, but was actively prevented from doing so by the Petitioner. Critically, the judge ruled that a reasonable interpretation of “landscaping,” supported by dictionary definitions and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ distinct licensing classifications for landscaping and swimming pool services, does not include the maintenance of a private pool and its associated mechanical equipment.

I. Case Overview

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

20F-H2020059-REL and 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Petitioner

Michael J. Stoltenberg (Homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ)

Respondent

Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA)

Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Dates

August 3, 2020 (Initial Hearing) and February 2, 2021 (Rehearing)

Final Disposition

Petition Dismissed (February 12, 2021)

II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about April 21, 2020, alleging the HOA acted in “bad faith” and failed to perform its duties in 2020. The core of his case was built on the following claims:

• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner alleged a violation of § 5.1 of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which mandates that the “Association shall maintain… landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” He also alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842, although this was not addressed at the hearing.

• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: The Petitioner contended that since the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the term should encompass all features on his lot. He specifically asserted that the HOA was responsible for maintaining:

◦ His swimming pool (referred to as a “water feature”), including the pump, filter, and chemicals.

◦ His unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.

◦ Walking paths that required staining.

◦ Replenishing decorative rock when it wears thin.

◦ The patio and all hardscape.

• Denial of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked for liability reasons” due to the pool. At the rehearing, he argued that the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule, which would have afforded him an opportunity to unlock the gate.

• Rehearing Claims: In his request for a rehearing, the Petitioner cited several grounds, including an abuse of discretion by the judge, errors in evidence, and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming hearing loss put him at a “severe disadvantage.” At the rehearing itself, he also asserted that the Respondent was “falsely representing themselves as an HOA” and did not have an elected Board.

III. Respondent’s Defense and Evidence

The HOA, represented by Nicole Payne, Esq., argued that it had fulfilled its obligations and that any failure to maintain the Petitioner’s backyard was due to his own actions.

• Consistent Maintenance of Front Yard: The HOA established that its contractor, Mowtown Landscape, had continuously maintained the Petitioner’s front yard since their contract began in January 2020.

• Denied Access to Backyard: The central defense was that the HOA’s contractor was repeatedly and deliberately denied access to the backyard. This was supported by substantial evidence:

◦ Testimony of Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): Mr. Baas testified that his crews were at the community every Wednesday and Thursday. He stated they knocked on the Petitioner’s door and left notes or business cards four or five times between January and March 2020.

◦ Testimony of Diana Crites (Property Manager): Ms. Crites presented a text message from Mr. Baas dated March 24, 2020, which read:

◦ Documentary Evidence: A photograph of the locked gate was submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Baas stating, “There is a lock on the gate going to the back yard and we were trying to see if they [sic] people inside the house wanted us to maintenance the back yard. No one ever answered or came to the door.”

• Scope of HOA Services: Ms. Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services (front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing of back yards, sprinkler system maintenance) and does not offer “concierge” services like maintaining potted plants or private pools. The community pool, she noted, is maintained by a different company entirely (Crystal Clear Pool Maintenance).

IV. Judicial Findings and Legal Rulings

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella found in favor of the Respondent in both the initial decision and the rehearing, ultimately dismissing the petition.

Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)

The initial petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The judge’s reasoning was:

1. Denial of Access: The Petitioner’s own admission, coupled with “credible, probative, and substantial evidence,” established that he had refused to allow the HOA access to his backyard since January 2020.

2. HOA Attempts: The evidence demonstrated that the HOA had attempted to access the yard on multiple occasions and was “specifically instructed in March 2020, that Respondent was not permitted to access Petitioner’s back yard.”

3. Scope of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.”

Rehearing Decision (February 12, 2021)

After the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, Judge Vanella again dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”

1. Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool, but “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent must do so.”

2. Definition of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the definitions of “landscaping” from various sources, including dictionaries, “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”

3. State Licensing as Key Differentiator: The most definitive part of the ruling relied on the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing classifications, which treat landscaping and pool maintenance as two separate and distinct services.

License Classification

Description & Relevance

R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (Formerly Landscaping and Irrigation Systems)

Allows for installation and repair of non-loadbearing concrete, patios, decorative walls, irrigation systems, and water features not attached to swimming pools. The classification specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for work on “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”

R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair

A separate license required “to service and perform minor repair of residential pools and accessories.”

The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services… the CC&Rs cannot reasonably be interpreted to include pool maintenance when it required Respondent to maintain landscaping.”

Judicial Recommendation

While ruling against the Petitioner, the judge offered a forward-looking, non-binding recommendation:

“…given that Petitioner is required to keep his gate secured due to having a pool, it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
  • Diana Crites (property manager/witness)
    Crites and Associates
    Owner of Respondent's property management company; licensed broker
  • Rian Baas (witness/contractor owner)
    Mowtown Landscape
    Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
  • Luis (landscaping staff)
    Staff member mentioned in text regarding access attempts
  • Jill (staff/employee)
    Staff member mentioned printing paper for Luis regarding access attempts

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

The Sun Groves Homeowners Association v. David L & Makenzie Lockhart

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sun Groves Homeowners Association Counsel Robert H. Willis, Esq.
Respondent David L. and Stephanie J. Lockhart Counsel Andrew Ellis, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed as the Respondents stipulated they violated the CC&R Article 10.11.1 concerning parking, and were ordered to pay the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fees.

Why this result: Respondents stipulated that they were in violation of Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of parking restrictions

Respondents stipulated that they were in violation of the SGHA CC&R’s regarding parking restrictions.

Orders: Petition granted; Respondents assessed the cost of Petitioner’s filing fees in the amount of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Stipulation, CC&R Violation, Parking
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120019-REL Decision – 854057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:42 (84.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120019-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “21F-H2120019-REL”,
“case_title”: “The Sun Groves Homeowners Association, Petitioner, vs. David L & Makenzie Lockhart, Respondents.”,
“decision_date”: “February 10, 2021”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “David L. Lockhart”,
“role”: “respondent”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Stephanie J. Lockhart”,
“role”: “respondent”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Proper co-Respondent in this matter”
},
{
“name”: “Makenzie Lockhart”,
“role”: “listed respondent”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Respondent’s daughter”
},
{
“name”: “Robert H. Willis”,
“role”: “attorney”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Burdman Willis, PLLC”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Andrew Ellis”,
“role”: “attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
}
]
}






Study Guide – 21F-H2120019-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “21F-H2120019-REL”, “case_title”: “The Sun Groves Homeowners Association vs. David L & Makenzie Lockhart”, “decision_date”: “2021-02-10”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA restrict parking on the street or in front of my house?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the CC&Rs specifically restrict parking to garages or driveways.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ upheld a CC&R provision that prohibited parking private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks anywhere on the property or adjacent roadways, except within a garage or private driveway.”, “alj_quote”: “No private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks shall be parked upon the Property or any roadway adjacent thereto except within a garage, in a private driveway appurtenant to a Dwelling Unit, or within areas designated for such purpose by the Board.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Article 10.11.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Parking”, “CC&Rs”, “Restrictions” ] }, { “question”: “If I admit to a violation during a hearing, what happens?”, “short_answer”: “The judge will accept the admission and issue a finding that the violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner stipulates (agrees) that they were in violation of a specific rule, the tribunal accepts this admission as fact and rules accordingly without needing further evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the tribunal finds that Respondents violated Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s.”, “legal_basis”: “Stipulation of Parties”, “topic_tags”: [ “Hearing Procedure”, “Stipulation”, “Evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA force me to pay their filing fees if they win?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the judge can order the homeowner to pay the HOA’s filing fees.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the homeowners agreed to pay the HOA’s $500.00 filing fee as part of the stipulation that the HOA was the prevailing party, and the judge ordered this assessment.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED assessing the cost of Petitioner’s filing fees in the amount of $500.00.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fines”, “Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Department of Real Estate have authority to hear HOA violation cases?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, state law allows owners or HOAs to file petitions regarding violations of community documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute permits planned community organizations (HOAs) or owners to file petitions with the Department regarding violations, which are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents under the authority Title 33, Chapter 16.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Process” ] }, { “question”: “Is the Administrative Law Judge’s decision final?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the order is binding unless a rehearing is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision issued by the ALJ is legally binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless a request for a rehearing is successfully granted.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Status”, “Appeals”, “Binding Order” ] }, { “question”: “How much time do I have to appeal or request a rehearing?”, “short_answer”: “You must file a request for rehearing within 30 days of the service of the order.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a party wishes to challenge the decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.09”, “topic_tags”: [ “Appeals”, “Deadlines”, “Procedure” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 21F-H2120019-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “21F-H2120019-REL”, “case_title”: “The Sun Groves Homeowners Association vs. David L & Makenzie Lockhart”, “decision_date”: “2021-02-10”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA restrict parking on the street or in front of my house?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the CC&Rs specifically restrict parking to garages or driveways.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ upheld a CC&R provision that prohibited parking private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks anywhere on the property or adjacent roadways, except within a garage or private driveway.”, “alj_quote”: “No private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks shall be parked upon the Property or any roadway adjacent thereto except within a garage, in a private driveway appurtenant to a Dwelling Unit, or within areas designated for such purpose by the Board.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Article 10.11.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Parking”, “CC&Rs”, “Restrictions” ] }, { “question”: “If I admit to a violation during a hearing, what happens?”, “short_answer”: “The judge will accept the admission and issue a finding that the violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner stipulates (agrees) that they were in violation of a specific rule, the tribunal accepts this admission as fact and rules accordingly without needing further evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the tribunal finds that Respondents violated Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s.”, “legal_basis”: “Stipulation of Parties”, “topic_tags”: [ “Hearing Procedure”, “Stipulation”, “Evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA force me to pay their filing fees if they win?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the judge can order the homeowner to pay the HOA’s filing fees.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the homeowners agreed to pay the HOA’s $500.00 filing fee as part of the stipulation that the HOA was the prevailing party, and the judge ordered this assessment.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED assessing the cost of Petitioner’s filing fees in the amount of $500.00.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fines”, “Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Department of Real Estate have authority to hear HOA violation cases?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, state law allows owners or HOAs to file petitions regarding violations of community documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute permits planned community organizations (HOAs) or owners to file petitions with the Department regarding violations, which are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents under the authority Title 33, Chapter 16.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Process” ] }, { “question”: “Is the Administrative Law Judge’s decision final?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the order is binding unless a rehearing is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision issued by the ALJ is legally binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless a request for a rehearing is successfully granted.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Status”, “Appeals”, “Binding Order” ] }, { “question”: “How much time do I have to appeal or request a rehearing?”, “short_answer”: “You must file a request for rehearing within 30 days of the service of the order.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a party wishes to challenge the decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.09”, “topic_tags”: [ “Appeals”, “Deadlines”, “Procedure” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert H. Willis (attorney)
    Burdman Willis, PLLC

Respondent Side

  • David L. Lockhart (respondent)
  • Stephanie J. Lockhart (respondent)
    Proper co-Respondent in this matter
  • Makenzie Lockhart (listed respondent)
    Respondent’s daughter
  • Andrew Ellis (attorney)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Erik R. Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Erik R. Pierce Counsel James C. Frisch
Respondent Sierra Morado Community Association Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami and Heather M. Hampstead

Alleged Violations

Article 11, Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 11.1 because that section grants the Board discretion, rather than a mandatory obligation, in the timing of enforcement actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated CC&R Section 11.1, as the ALJ found the Board's decision to temporarily delay enforcement pending litigation and settlement discussions fell within the discretion granted by the CC&R.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure of HOA to Enforce Architectural Approval Conditions (Hot Tub Screening)

Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to enforce the mandatory installation of a pergola and screening around a neighbor's hot tub, a condition imposed by the Architectural Review Committee when retroactively approving the installation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Dispute, Architectural Control, Discretionary Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • 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 Article 4, Section 4.27
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • 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)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850237.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (43.0 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850239.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (7.1 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 853778.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (119.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020053-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the key findings and judicial decision in the administrative case of Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL. The petition, filed by homeowner Erik R. Pierce, was ultimately denied by the Administrative Law Judge on February 10, 2021.

The core of the dispute was Pierce’s allegation that the SMCA failed to enforce its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) against his neighbors, the Kinstles, who installed a hot tub visible from Pierce’s property, creating a privacy violation. While the SMCA Board retroactively approved the hot tub, it did so with the explicit condition that a pergola and screening be installed to mitigate the visibility issue. The Kinstles subsequently failed to install the required screening.

The judge concluded that the SMCA’s conditional approval resolved the initial violation claim under CC&R Section 4.27. The central issue then became whether the SMCA’s subsequent failure to compel the installation of the screening constituted a violation of its enforcement duty under CC&R Section 11.1. The judge ruled that it did not, finding that the CC&Rs grant the Association a discretionary right to enforce its rules, not an absolute obligation. The judge found persuasive the SMCA’s testimony that it delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation and in an attempt to foster a settlement between the neighbors. This exercise of discretion was deemed permissible under the Association’s governing documents.

1. Case Overview

Parties and Legal Representation

Entity

Legal Counsel

Petitioner

Erik R. Pierce

James C. Frisch, Esq. & Michael Resare, Esq. (King & Frisch, P.C.)

Respondent

Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)

Heather M. Hampstead, Esq. & Nicholas C.S. Nogami, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP)

Key Case Details

• Case Number: 20F-H2020053-REL

• Presiding Judge: Adam D. Stone, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: January 25, 2021 (conducted via Google Meet)

• Decision Date: February 10, 2021

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) is statutorily authorized to hear petitions from homeowners’ association members. This case was referred by the ADRE to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

2. Core Dispute and Allegations

Petitioner’s Complaint

On March 23, 2020, Erik R. Pierce filed a complaint with the ADRE alleging that the SMCA was in violation of its own CC&Rs, specifically Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).

The dispute originated with the installation of a hot tub by Pierce’s neighbors, the Kinstles. Pierce testified that the hot tub and its occupants were visible from inside his house, and that occupants of the hot tub could look directly into his home, violating his right to privacy.

Timeline of Key Events

• September 4, 2019: Pierce submits his initial complaint to the SMCA, noting the hot tub’s visibility and asserting that the Kinstles had failed to obtain prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

• Post-September 2019: The SMCA informs the Kinstles that they installed the hot tub without approval and directs them to submit plans for the proper approval process.

• February 10, 2020: After several rejections, the SMCA Board approves the Kinstles’ hot tub installation on the condition that a pergola and screening are installed.

• March 3, 2020: Pierce receives a letter from the property management company, AAM, LLC, stating that the installation was approved with the screening requirement and that the complaint was closed.

• January 25, 2021: At the time of the hearing, the Kinstles had still not installed the required pergola and screening.

3. Analysis of Key Testimonies

The decision was informed by testimony from four witnesses presented by the Petitioner.

• Erik R. Pierce (Petitioner): Outlined the timeline of the dispute, the visibility of the neighbors’ hot tub, the resulting privacy violation, and the SMCA Board’s failure to enforce its own conditional approval requiring a pergola and screening.

• Bill Oliver (Former SMCA President, Fall 2019 – April 2020): Confirmed that the Board approved the hot tub retroactively with the stipulation for a pergola and screening. He stated the Board had a “rigorous process of enforcement” but could not recall if a specific violation letter was sent to the Kinstles after the conditional approval was granted.

• Jodie Cervantes (Former Community Manager, 2019 – June 2020): Testified that she believed the CC&Rs were enforced and the matter was closed. She suggested the Kinstles had a six-month period to comply with the screening requirement, which she believed was in the Design Guidelines, but could not point to the specific language.

• Martin Douglas (Current SMCA President, from April 2020): Stated he had been to the Pierce residence for another matter and the hot tub was not visible to him. He attributed the lack of enforcement action to the “ongoing litigation and multiple settlement offers which were being exchanged.” He testified that upon resolution of the case, the Board “will follow through with enforcement actions should the Kinstle’s fail to comply.”

4. Judicial Reasoning and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on the interpretation of the SMCA’s CC&Rs and the discretionary power of its Board.

Governing CC&R Provisions

The ruling rested on the specific language of two sections of the SMCA CC&Rs:

• Section 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas): This section permits the installation of a hot tub only if it is “properly screened… if neither it nor its occupants are Visible from Neighboring Property, and with the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee.”

• Section 11.1 (Enforcement): This section states that “The Association or any Owner shall have the right to enforce the Project Documents… The failure of the Association or an Owner to take enforcement action with respect to a violation of the Project Documents shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver of the right of the Association or any Owner to enforce the Project Documents in the future.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions

1. Resolution of the Section 4.27 Claim: The judge determined that the initial issue regarding the unapproved hot tub “was essentially resolved by the Board instructing the Kinstle’s erect a pergola and install screening.” By making its approval conditional on a privacy solution, the Board addressed the core requirement of the section.

2. The “Heart of the Matter” – Section 11.1 Enforcement: The judge identified the central question as whether the SMCA violated Section 11.1 by failing to enforce the screening requirement against the Kinstles.

3. Discretionary vs. Mandatory Enforcement: The judge concluded that the language of Section 11.1 grants the Board a “right to enforce, not an absolute obligation.”

4. Rationale for Delayed Enforcement: The judge found the testimony of the current SMCA President, Martin Douglas, to be “more persuasive.” Douglas’s explanation—that the Board delayed enforcement to “foster an agreement with the neighbors” amid ongoing litigation—was accepted as a valid exercise of the Board’s discretion.

5. Final Ruling: The judge stated, “Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.” Consequently, the judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated CC&R Section 11.1.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.

The order was issued on February 10, 2021, and is binding unless a rehearing is granted.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020053-REL


Study Guide: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL)

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing concerning the dispute between Erik R. Pierce and the Sierra Morado Community Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms and entities involved in the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the provided source documents.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the initial reason for Mr. Pierce’s complaint against his neighbors, the Kinstles?

3. Which two sections of the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA) CC&Rs did Mr. Pierce allege were violated?

4. What action did the SMCA Board take after being informed that the Kinstles had installed a hot tub without prior approval?

5. What specific conditions did the SMCA Board require for the retroactive approval of the Kinstles’ hot tub installation?

6. According to former Board President Bill Oliver’s testimony, what was the Board’s common practice regarding architectural requests made after an installation?

7. What reason did Community Manager Jodie Cervantes give for her belief that no further enforcement action could be taken against the Kinstles?

8. According to current SMCA Board President Martin Douglas, why had the Board delayed enforcement actions against the Kinstles?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision regarding the alleged violation of CC&R Section 11.1?

10. How did the judge interpret the Board’s enforcement power as described in Section 11.1 of the CC&Rs?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Erik R. Pierce, who was the Petitioner filing the complaint, and the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), which was the Respondent. Mr. Pierce is a homeowner and member of the SMCA.

2. Mr. Pierce’s complaint originated because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his backyard. He testified that occupants in the hot tub were visible from inside his house, violating his privacy.

3. The Petitioner, Mr. Pierce, alleged that the Respondent, SMCA, was in violation of sections 4.27 and 11.1 of the SMCA CC&Rs. Section 4.27 pertains to the installation of spas, and Section 11.1 addresses the enforcement of project documents.

4. After Mr. Pierce filed his complaint, the SMCA informed the Kinstles that they had installed the hot tub without approval. The Board then directed the Kinstles to submit their plans and go through the proper architectural approval process.

5. The Kinstles’ hot tub was approved retroactively on February 10, 2020, on the condition that they install a pergola and screening. This was intended to address the visibility of the hot tub from Mr. Pierce’s property.

6. Bill Oliver, the SMCA President from fall 2019 to April 2020, testified that the Board would approve architectural requests retroactively. He confirmed that this is what occurred in the case of the Kinstles’ hot tub.

7. Jodie Cervantes, the Community Manager, testified that she believed the matter was closed because the Kinstles had six months to comply with the pergola and screening requirements. She believed this six-month deadline was outlined in the Design Guidelines, though she could not locate the specific language.

8. Martin Douglas, who became Board President in April 2020, testified that the Board delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation. He stated that multiple settlement offers were being exchanged in an effort to foster an agreement between the neighbors.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that Mr. Pierce did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the SMCA had violated CC&R Section 11.1.

10. The judge determined that Section 11.1 grants the Board a right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This interpretation means the Board has the discretion to delay enforcement, which it did in this case to facilitate a potential settlement.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and testimony from the case documents to construct a thorough analysis. No answers are provided.

1. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Analyze why the Petitioner, Erik R. Pierce, failed to meet this burden of proof concerning the violation of CC&R Section 11.1.

2. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Pierce’s initial complaint on September 4, 2019, to the final decision on February 10, 2021. Discuss the key actions, delays, and decisions made by the SMCA Board during this period.

3. Compare and contrast the testimonies of Bill Oliver, Jodie Cervantes, and Martin Douglas. How do their different roles and timeframes with the SMCA shape their perspectives on the association’s enforcement process and the specific handling of the Kinstle case?

4. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of CC&R Section 11.1. Discuss the distinction made between a “right to enforce” and an “absolute obligation,” and explain how this interpretation was central to the final ruling.

5. Based on the judge’s findings and the testimony of Martin Douglas, what are the likely next steps for the SMCA regarding the Kinstles’ non-compliance with the pergola and screening requirement? Evaluate the potential for future conflict or resolution between the parties involved.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

AAM, LLC

The property management company that employed Community Manager Jodie Cervantes and managed the Sierra Morado Community Association during the period of the dispute.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Architectural Committee (ARC)

The committee within the SMCA responsible for approving construction, installations, and alterations to properties, as referenced in CC&R Section 4.27.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearing from members of homeowners’ associations. Mr. Pierce filed his initial complaint with this department.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove its allegations. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to establish his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents or rules of a planned community. The dispute centered on alleged violations of Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).

Hearing

The formal proceeding held on January 25, 2021, where the parties presented exhibits and witness testimony to the Administrative Law Judge.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or complaint to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Erik R. Pierce.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA).

Retroactive Approval

The act of approving an architectural installation (such as a hot tub) after it has already been completed, which the SMCA Board did in this case.

Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)

The homeowners’ association in Tucson, Arizona, of which Erik R. Pierce and the Kinstles are members.

Stipulation

An agreement between the parties in a legal proceeding. In this case, the parties stipulated to enter all submitted exhibits into the record.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020053-REL


Your HOA Can Ignore Its Own Rules? A Surprising Legal Case Every Homeowner Needs to Understand

Introduction: The Homeowner’s Dilemma

Most homeowners in a planned community operate under a simple assumption: if a neighbor violates a clear rule, you can file a complaint, and the Homeowners Association (HOA) is required to take action. It’s the fundamental promise of an HOA—consistent enforcement to protect property values and quality of life.

But what happens when the HOA agrees a violation has occurred, demands a fix, and then… does nothing to enforce it?

A real-world legal case, Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association, provides a surprising and cautionary answer. The final court decision reveals a critical loophole that may exist in your own HOA agreement. This article will break down the three most counter-intuitive takeaways from that case that every homeowner should understand.

Takeaway 1: “A Right to Enforce” Isn’t an “Obligation to Enforce”

The core of the dispute was straightforward. Homeowner Erik Pierce filed a complaint because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his property, a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—the legally binding rules that govern the community. The HOA’s Architectural Committee retroactively approved the hot tub, but only on the condition that the neighbors install a pergola and screening to shield it from view.

The neighbors never installed the required screening, yet the HOA took no further enforcement action. This inaction led Mr. Pierce to sue the HOA.

The judge’s decision hinged on a crucial interpretation of the HOA’s governing documents. The judge ruled in favor of the HOA because the documents gave the Board the right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This distinction granted the HOA discretion to choose its strategy. The judge found the board’s reasoning for the delay persuasive: it was deliberately choosing negotiation over immediate punitive action to resolve the conflict. The board’s discretion wasn’t just a right to do nothing; it was a right to choose a different path to compliance.

The key phrase here is “shall have the right to enforce.” Had the documents stated the board “shall enforce,” the outcome would likely have been entirely different. This single phrase transforms enforcement from a mandate into a strategic option for the board.

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlights this critical point:

“…Section 11.1 only gives the Board a right to enforce, not an absolute obligation. While Petitioner is understandably upset that there has yet to be any follow through on enforcement of the screening requirements, this tribunal finds the testimony of Mr. Douglas more persuasive, namely that the Board has delayed in enforcing because it was trying to foster an agreement with the neighbors. Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.”

This finding is shocking for most homeowners, who reasonably assume that the rules laid out in their CC&Rs are mandates for the board, not a menu of discretionary options.

Takeaway 2: Suing Your HOA Can Ironically Pause Enforcement

The board’s discretionary power was put on full display when Mr. Pierce filed his lawsuit, creating a legal Catch-22. The current SMCA Board President, Martin Douglas, testified that the board deliberately paused formal enforcement actions against the neighbors who had violated the architectural requirement.

The judge ultimately found that the board’s rationale for this pause was a valid exercise of its discretion. The decision to delay was framed not as inaction, but as a strategic choice “to foster an agreement with the neighbors” amidst the complexities of litigation.

This reveals a deep irony: by filing a petition to force the HOA’s hand, the homeowner inadvertently provided the context for the HOA to justify a delay. The judge accepted that the board’s attempt to find a negotiated solution instead of escalating fines and penalties during an active lawsuit was a reasonable use of its discretionary authority. This case demonstrates how legal action, intended to accelerate a resolution, can sometimes be used by an HOA board to justify a different, slower approach.

Takeaway 3: A Clear Rule Violation Doesn’t Guarantee a Win in Court

One of the most surprising aspects of this case is that the facts of the violation were not in dispute. The judge explicitly acknowledged that the neighbors were in violation of the Architectural Review Committee’s requirement. The official decision states:

“Based upon the evidence provided, the Kinstle’s are in violation of the requirement the ARC Committee imposed on them.”

Despite this clear violation by the neighbor, the homeowner, Mr. Pierce, still lost his case against the HOA.

The case was lost on a critical legal distinction: the lawsuit was not about the neighbor’s violation, but about the HOA’s alleged failure to act. Since the judge determined the HOA had the discretionary right—not the mandatory obligation—to enforce the rule, its choice to pursue negotiation rather than immediate punitive action was not considered a violation of its duties.

The lesson here is profound: proving a neighbor is breaking the rules is only the first step. To win a case against your HOA for non-enforcement, you must also prove that its response (or lack thereof) constitutes a breach of its specific duties as outlined in your community’s governing documents.

Conclusion: Know Your Documents, Temper Your Expectations

The case of Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association serves as a stark reminder that HOA governance is often more complex than it appears. The precise wording of your community’s CC&Rs is critically important, as a single phrase can be the difference between a mandatory duty and a discretionary power. This case illustrates that the gap between a rule existing on paper and the board’s power to enforce it can be vast.

As a homeowner, your first step should be to obtain a copy of your community’s most recent CC&Rs and search for the enforcement clause—does it say your board “shall” enforce the rules, or does it say they have the “right” to?

This case forces every homeowner to ask: If your governing documents give your board the ‘right’ to act, what leverage do you truly have to ensure they actually will?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Erik R. Pierce (petitioner)
  • James C. Frisch (petitioner attorney)
    King & Frisch, P.C.
  • Michael Resare (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C.S. Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Heather M. Hampstead (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Jodie Cervantes (property manager/witness)
    AAM, LLC
    Community Manager for Respondent SMCA
  • Bill Oliver (board member/witness)
    Former SMCA President (Fall 2019 to April 2020)
  • Martin Douglas (board member/witness)
    Current SMCA Board President (since April 2020)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • LDettorre (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • AHansen (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • djones (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • DGardner (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • ncano (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Signed document transmission

Erik R. Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Erik R. Pierce Counsel James C. Frisch
Respondent Sierra Morado Community Association Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami and Heather M. Hampstead

Alleged Violations

Article 11, Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 11.1 because that section grants the Board discretion, rather than a mandatory obligation, in the timing of enforcement actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated CC&R Section 11.1, as the ALJ found the Board's decision to temporarily delay enforcement pending litigation and settlement discussions fell within the discretion granted by the CC&R.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure of HOA to Enforce Architectural Approval Conditions (Hot Tub Screening)

Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to enforce the mandatory installation of a pergola and screening around a neighbor's hot tub, a condition imposed by the Architectural Review Committee when retroactively approving the installation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Dispute, Architectural Control, Discretionary Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • 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 Article 4, Section 4.27
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • 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)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850237.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:29 (43.0 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850239.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:31 (7.1 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 853778.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:32 (119.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020053-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the key findings and judicial decision in the administrative case of Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL. The petition, filed by homeowner Erik R. Pierce, was ultimately denied by the Administrative Law Judge on February 10, 2021.

The core of the dispute was Pierce’s allegation that the SMCA failed to enforce its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) against his neighbors, the Kinstles, who installed a hot tub visible from Pierce’s property, creating a privacy violation. While the SMCA Board retroactively approved the hot tub, it did so with the explicit condition that a pergola and screening be installed to mitigate the visibility issue. The Kinstles subsequently failed to install the required screening.

The judge concluded that the SMCA’s conditional approval resolved the initial violation claim under CC&R Section 4.27. The central issue then became whether the SMCA’s subsequent failure to compel the installation of the screening constituted a violation of its enforcement duty under CC&R Section 11.1. The judge ruled that it did not, finding that the CC&Rs grant the Association a discretionary right to enforce its rules, not an absolute obligation. The judge found persuasive the SMCA’s testimony that it delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation and in an attempt to foster a settlement between the neighbors. This exercise of discretion was deemed permissible under the Association’s governing documents.

1. Case Overview

Parties and Legal Representation

Entity

Legal Counsel

Petitioner

Erik R. Pierce

James C. Frisch, Esq. & Michael Resare, Esq. (King & Frisch, P.C.)

Respondent

Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)

Heather M. Hampstead, Esq. & Nicholas C.S. Nogami, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP)

Key Case Details

• Case Number: 20F-H2020053-REL

• Presiding Judge: Adam D. Stone, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: January 25, 2021 (conducted via Google Meet)

• Decision Date: February 10, 2021

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) is statutorily authorized to hear petitions from homeowners’ association members. This case was referred by the ADRE to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

2. Core Dispute and Allegations

Petitioner’s Complaint

On March 23, 2020, Erik R. Pierce filed a complaint with the ADRE alleging that the SMCA was in violation of its own CC&Rs, specifically Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).

The dispute originated with the installation of a hot tub by Pierce’s neighbors, the Kinstles. Pierce testified that the hot tub and its occupants were visible from inside his house, and that occupants of the hot tub could look directly into his home, violating his right to privacy.

Timeline of Key Events

• September 4, 2019: Pierce submits his initial complaint to the SMCA, noting the hot tub’s visibility and asserting that the Kinstles had failed to obtain prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

• Post-September 2019: The SMCA informs the Kinstles that they installed the hot tub without approval and directs them to submit plans for the proper approval process.

• February 10, 2020: After several rejections, the SMCA Board approves the Kinstles’ hot tub installation on the condition that a pergola and screening are installed.

• March 3, 2020: Pierce receives a letter from the property management company, AAM, LLC, stating that the installation was approved with the screening requirement and that the complaint was closed.

• January 25, 2021: At the time of the hearing, the Kinstles had still not installed the required pergola and screening.

3. Analysis of Key Testimonies

The decision was informed by testimony from four witnesses presented by the Petitioner.

• Erik R. Pierce (Petitioner): Outlined the timeline of the dispute, the visibility of the neighbors’ hot tub, the resulting privacy violation, and the SMCA Board’s failure to enforce its own conditional approval requiring a pergola and screening.

• Bill Oliver (Former SMCA President, Fall 2019 – April 2020): Confirmed that the Board approved the hot tub retroactively with the stipulation for a pergola and screening. He stated the Board had a “rigorous process of enforcement” but could not recall if a specific violation letter was sent to the Kinstles after the conditional approval was granted.

• Jodie Cervantes (Former Community Manager, 2019 – June 2020): Testified that she believed the CC&Rs were enforced and the matter was closed. She suggested the Kinstles had a six-month period to comply with the screening requirement, which she believed was in the Design Guidelines, but could not point to the specific language.

• Martin Douglas (Current SMCA President, from April 2020): Stated he had been to the Pierce residence for another matter and the hot tub was not visible to him. He attributed the lack of enforcement action to the “ongoing litigation and multiple settlement offers which were being exchanged.” He testified that upon resolution of the case, the Board “will follow through with enforcement actions should the Kinstle’s fail to comply.”

4. Judicial Reasoning and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on the interpretation of the SMCA’s CC&Rs and the discretionary power of its Board.

Governing CC&R Provisions

The ruling rested on the specific language of two sections of the SMCA CC&Rs:

• Section 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas): This section permits the installation of a hot tub only if it is “properly screened… if neither it nor its occupants are Visible from Neighboring Property, and with the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee.”

• Section 11.1 (Enforcement): This section states that “The Association or any Owner shall have the right to enforce the Project Documents… The failure of the Association or an Owner to take enforcement action with respect to a violation of the Project Documents shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver of the right of the Association or any Owner to enforce the Project Documents in the future.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions

1. Resolution of the Section 4.27 Claim: The judge determined that the initial issue regarding the unapproved hot tub “was essentially resolved by the Board instructing the Kinstle’s erect a pergola and install screening.” By making its approval conditional on a privacy solution, the Board addressed the core requirement of the section.

2. The “Heart of the Matter” – Section 11.1 Enforcement: The judge identified the central question as whether the SMCA violated Section 11.1 by failing to enforce the screening requirement against the Kinstles.

3. Discretionary vs. Mandatory Enforcement: The judge concluded that the language of Section 11.1 grants the Board a “right to enforce, not an absolute obligation.”

4. Rationale for Delayed Enforcement: The judge found the testimony of the current SMCA President, Martin Douglas, to be “more persuasive.” Douglas’s explanation—that the Board delayed enforcement to “foster an agreement with the neighbors” amid ongoing litigation—was accepted as a valid exercise of the Board’s discretion.

5. Final Ruling: The judge stated, “Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.” Consequently, the judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated CC&R Section 11.1.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.

The order was issued on February 10, 2021, and is binding unless a rehearing is granted.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020053-REL


Study Guide: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL)

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing concerning the dispute between Erik R. Pierce and the Sierra Morado Community Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms and entities involved in the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the provided source documents.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the initial reason for Mr. Pierce’s complaint against his neighbors, the Kinstles?

3. Which two sections of the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA) CC&Rs did Mr. Pierce allege were violated?

4. What action did the SMCA Board take after being informed that the Kinstles had installed a hot tub without prior approval?

5. What specific conditions did the SMCA Board require for the retroactive approval of the Kinstles’ hot tub installation?

6. According to former Board President Bill Oliver’s testimony, what was the Board’s common practice regarding architectural requests made after an installation?

7. What reason did Community Manager Jodie Cervantes give for her belief that no further enforcement action could be taken against the Kinstles?

8. According to current SMCA Board President Martin Douglas, why had the Board delayed enforcement actions against the Kinstles?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision regarding the alleged violation of CC&R Section 11.1?

10. How did the judge interpret the Board’s enforcement power as described in Section 11.1 of the CC&Rs?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Erik R. Pierce, who was the Petitioner filing the complaint, and the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), which was the Respondent. Mr. Pierce is a homeowner and member of the SMCA.

2. Mr. Pierce’s complaint originated because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his backyard. He testified that occupants in the hot tub were visible from inside his house, violating his privacy.

3. The Petitioner, Mr. Pierce, alleged that the Respondent, SMCA, was in violation of sections 4.27 and 11.1 of the SMCA CC&Rs. Section 4.27 pertains to the installation of spas, and Section 11.1 addresses the enforcement of project documents.

4. After Mr. Pierce filed his complaint, the SMCA informed the Kinstles that they had installed the hot tub without approval. The Board then directed the Kinstles to submit their plans and go through the proper architectural approval process.

5. The Kinstles’ hot tub was approved retroactively on February 10, 2020, on the condition that they install a pergola and screening. This was intended to address the visibility of the hot tub from Mr. Pierce’s property.

6. Bill Oliver, the SMCA President from fall 2019 to April 2020, testified that the Board would approve architectural requests retroactively. He confirmed that this is what occurred in the case of the Kinstles’ hot tub.

7. Jodie Cervantes, the Community Manager, testified that she believed the matter was closed because the Kinstles had six months to comply with the pergola and screening requirements. She believed this six-month deadline was outlined in the Design Guidelines, though she could not locate the specific language.

8. Martin Douglas, who became Board President in April 2020, testified that the Board delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation. He stated that multiple settlement offers were being exchanged in an effort to foster an agreement between the neighbors.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that Mr. Pierce did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the SMCA had violated CC&R Section 11.1.

10. The judge determined that Section 11.1 grants the Board a right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This interpretation means the Board has the discretion to delay enforcement, which it did in this case to facilitate a potential settlement.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and testimony from the case documents to construct a thorough analysis. No answers are provided.

1. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Analyze why the Petitioner, Erik R. Pierce, failed to meet this burden of proof concerning the violation of CC&R Section 11.1.

2. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Pierce’s initial complaint on September 4, 2019, to the final decision on February 10, 2021. Discuss the key actions, delays, and decisions made by the SMCA Board during this period.

3. Compare and contrast the testimonies of Bill Oliver, Jodie Cervantes, and Martin Douglas. How do their different roles and timeframes with the SMCA shape their perspectives on the association’s enforcement process and the specific handling of the Kinstle case?

4. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of CC&R Section 11.1. Discuss the distinction made between a “right to enforce” and an “absolute obligation,” and explain how this interpretation was central to the final ruling.

5. Based on the judge’s findings and the testimony of Martin Douglas, what are the likely next steps for the SMCA regarding the Kinstles’ non-compliance with the pergola and screening requirement? Evaluate the potential for future conflict or resolution between the parties involved.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

AAM, LLC

The property management company that employed Community Manager Jodie Cervantes and managed the Sierra Morado Community Association during the period of the dispute.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Architectural Committee (ARC)

The committee within the SMCA responsible for approving construction, installations, and alterations to properties, as referenced in CC&R Section 4.27.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearing from members of homeowners’ associations. Mr. Pierce filed his initial complaint with this department.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove its allegations. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to establish his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents or rules of a planned community. The dispute centered on alleged violations of Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).

Hearing

The formal proceeding held on January 25, 2021, where the parties presented exhibits and witness testimony to the Administrative Law Judge.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or complaint to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Erik R. Pierce.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA).

Retroactive Approval

The act of approving an architectural installation (such as a hot tub) after it has already been completed, which the SMCA Board did in this case.

Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)

The homeowners’ association in Tucson, Arizona, of which Erik R. Pierce and the Kinstles are members.

Stipulation

An agreement between the parties in a legal proceeding. In this case, the parties stipulated to enter all submitted exhibits into the record.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020053-REL


Your HOA Can Ignore Its Own Rules? A Surprising Legal Case Every Homeowner Needs to Understand

Introduction: The Homeowner’s Dilemma

Most homeowners in a planned community operate under a simple assumption: if a neighbor violates a clear rule, you can file a complaint, and the Homeowners Association (HOA) is required to take action. It’s the fundamental promise of an HOA—consistent enforcement to protect property values and quality of life.

But what happens when the HOA agrees a violation has occurred, demands a fix, and then… does nothing to enforce it?

A real-world legal case, Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association, provides a surprising and cautionary answer. The final court decision reveals a critical loophole that may exist in your own HOA agreement. This article will break down the three most counter-intuitive takeaways from that case that every homeowner should understand.

Takeaway 1: “A Right to Enforce” Isn’t an “Obligation to Enforce”

The core of the dispute was straightforward. Homeowner Erik Pierce filed a complaint because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his property, a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—the legally binding rules that govern the community. The HOA’s Architectural Committee retroactively approved the hot tub, but only on the condition that the neighbors install a pergola and screening to shield it from view.

The neighbors never installed the required screening, yet the HOA took no further enforcement action. This inaction led Mr. Pierce to sue the HOA.

The judge’s decision hinged on a crucial interpretation of the HOA’s governing documents. The judge ruled in favor of the HOA because the documents gave the Board the right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This distinction granted the HOA discretion to choose its strategy. The judge found the board’s reasoning for the delay persuasive: it was deliberately choosing negotiation over immediate punitive action to resolve the conflict. The board’s discretion wasn’t just a right to do nothing; it was a right to choose a different path to compliance.

The key phrase here is “shall have the right to enforce.” Had the documents stated the board “shall enforce,” the outcome would likely have been entirely different. This single phrase transforms enforcement from a mandate into a strategic option for the board.

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlights this critical point:

“…Section 11.1 only gives the Board a right to enforce, not an absolute obligation. While Petitioner is understandably upset that there has yet to be any follow through on enforcement of the screening requirements, this tribunal finds the testimony of Mr. Douglas more persuasive, namely that the Board has delayed in enforcing because it was trying to foster an agreement with the neighbors. Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.”

This finding is shocking for most homeowners, who reasonably assume that the rules laid out in their CC&Rs are mandates for the board, not a menu of discretionary options.

Takeaway 2: Suing Your HOA Can Ironically Pause Enforcement

The board’s discretionary power was put on full display when Mr. Pierce filed his lawsuit, creating a legal Catch-22. The current SMCA Board President, Martin Douglas, testified that the board deliberately paused formal enforcement actions against the neighbors who had violated the architectural requirement.

The judge ultimately found that the board’s rationale for this pause was a valid exercise of its discretion. The decision to delay was framed not as inaction, but as a strategic choice “to foster an agreement with the neighbors” amidst the complexities of litigation.

This reveals a deep irony: by filing a petition to force the HOA’s hand, the homeowner inadvertently provided the context for the HOA to justify a delay. The judge accepted that the board’s attempt to find a negotiated solution instead of escalating fines and penalties during an active lawsuit was a reasonable use of its discretionary authority. This case demonstrates how legal action, intended to accelerate a resolution, can sometimes be used by an HOA board to justify a different, slower approach.

Takeaway 3: A Clear Rule Violation Doesn’t Guarantee a Win in Court

One of the most surprising aspects of this case is that the facts of the violation were not in dispute. The judge explicitly acknowledged that the neighbors were in violation of the Architectural Review Committee’s requirement. The official decision states:

“Based upon the evidence provided, the Kinstle’s are in violation of the requirement the ARC Committee imposed on them.”

Despite this clear violation by the neighbor, the homeowner, Mr. Pierce, still lost his case against the HOA.

The case was lost on a critical legal distinction: the lawsuit was not about the neighbor’s violation, but about the HOA’s alleged failure to act. Since the judge determined the HOA had the discretionary right—not the mandatory obligation—to enforce the rule, its choice to pursue negotiation rather than immediate punitive action was not considered a violation of its duties.

The lesson here is profound: proving a neighbor is breaking the rules is only the first step. To win a case against your HOA for non-enforcement, you must also prove that its response (or lack thereof) constitutes a breach of its specific duties as outlined in your community’s governing documents.

Conclusion: Know Your Documents, Temper Your Expectations

The case of Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association serves as a stark reminder that HOA governance is often more complex than it appears. The precise wording of your community’s CC&Rs is critically important, as a single phrase can be the difference between a mandatory duty and a discretionary power. This case illustrates that the gap between a rule existing on paper and the board’s power to enforce it can be vast.

As a homeowner, your first step should be to obtain a copy of your community’s most recent CC&Rs and search for the enforcement clause—does it say your board “shall” enforce the rules, or does it say they have the “right” to?

This case forces every homeowner to ask: If your governing documents give your board the ‘right’ to act, what leverage do you truly have to ensure they actually will?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Erik R. Pierce (petitioner)
  • James C. Frisch (petitioner attorney)
    King & Frisch, P.C.
  • Michael Resare (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C.S. Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Heather M. Hampstead (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Jodie Cervantes (property manager/witness)
    AAM, LLC
    Community Manager for Respondent SMCA
  • Bill Oliver (board member/witness)
    Former SMCA President (Fall 2019 to April 2020)
  • Martin Douglas (board member/witness)
    Current SMCA Board President (since April 2020)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • LDettorre (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • AHansen (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • djones (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • DGardner (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • ncano (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Signed document transmission

Thomas W Sweeney v. Warner Ranch Landing Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-04
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas W. Sweeney Counsel —
Respondent Warner Ranch Landing Association Counsel Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

Article 8, Section 8.1.5

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the HOA did not violate the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs allowed the Association to increase the annual assessment by either the CPI or 5%, and the disputed 10% increase was below the maximum allowable assessment calculated over the years.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof due to an incorrect interpretation of the CC&Rs regarding maximum annual assessment calculations.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Assessment Increase

Petitioner alleged the Association increased annual assessments in violation of Article VIII Section 8.1.5 of the CC&Rs.

Orders: IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Thomas W. Sweeney's Petition be dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)
  • 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)

Decision Documents

21F-H2120027-REL Decision – 852845.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:23:29 (102.5 KB)

**Case Title:** No. 21F-H2120027-REL
**Parties:** Thomas W. Sweeney (Petitioner) v. Warner Ranch Landing Association (Respondent)
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

**Main Issue**
The central issue in this hearing was whether the Respondent homeowners association (HOA) increased its 2021 annual assessments in violation of Article VIII, Section 8.1.5 of the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner contested a 10% increase in the 2021 annual assessments, arguing that it violated Section 8.1.5 of the CC&Rs. He interpreted the governing documents to mean that a 5% maximum allowable annual increase applies only if the Consumer Price Index (CPI) no longer exists. The Petitioner did not submit supplementary evidence to support his claim, relying solely on his personal interpretation of the CC&Rs.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** Representatives for the HOA testified that Section 8.1.5 allows the maximum annual assessment to increase automatically each year by the *greater* of the CPI or 5%. Because the board elected not to raise dues to the absolute maximum in prior years, the cumulative permitted maximum assessment for 2021 would theoretically be over $4,200. Therefore, the 2021 assessment, even with the 10% year-over-year increase, remained more than $2,300 below the maximum amount allowed under the CC&Rs. Additionally, the Respondent noted that Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)) permits an HOA to increase regular assessments up to 20% over the preceding year without a member vote.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge evaluated the case based on the plain language of Section 8.1.5 of the CC&Rs. The judge found that the CC&Rs explicitly permit the HOA to increase the maximum annual assessment by the greater of the CPI percentage increase *or* 5%, directly contradicting the Petitioner's interpretation. By law, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the community documents.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. As a result, the Petition was officially dismissed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas W. Sweeney (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
    Warner Ranch Landing Association
    Also listed as B. Austin Bailio in mailing section
  • Christopher Reynolds (property manager)
    Warner Ranch Landing Association
    Community Manager for Respondent; provided testimony
  • Michael Goldberg (board member)
    Warner Ranch Landing Association
    Vice-president of the Board; provided testimony

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Haining Xia Counsel —
Respondent Dorsey Place Condominium Association Counsel Nick Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4. The Respondent was found to be the prevailing party, and Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, specifically failing to establish that an election was required during the years alleged.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to elect the Board at Annual Members Meetings in 2018 and 2019

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to elect the board during the 2018 and 2019 Annual Members Meetings. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation, specifically failing to establish that an election was required during those years.

Orders: Respondent is the prevailing party, and Petitioner's appeal is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(10)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120016-REL Decision – 849881.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:23 (109.6 KB)

21F-H2120016-REL Decision – 895555.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:16 (107.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120016-REL


Briefing Document: Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and legal proceedings from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between petitioner Haining Xia and the Dorsey Place Condominium Association (the Respondent). The core of the dispute revolves around Mr. Xia’s allegation that the Association violated its own bylaws by failing to conduct board elections during its 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

The Respondent’s primary defense was a jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could not hear the case because the Association’s condominium status was legally terminated in April 2019, prior to the filing of the petition. This termination was previously upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court.

In the initial hearing on January 7, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof, relying solely on assertions without presenting any documentary evidence. Consequently, the petition was denied. A rehearing was granted and held on July 2, 2021, where the petitioner submitted documents but failed to provide testimony explaining their relevance or to establish that board elections were required in the years in question. The ALJ again concluded that the petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof. The final order dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and declared the Respondent the prevailing party.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 21F-H2120016-REL / 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG

• Tribunal: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Petitioner: Haining Xia

• Respondent: Dorsey Place Condominium Association

• Presiding Administrative Law Judge: Sondra J. Vanella

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated its Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4 by failing to include board elections on the agendas for the 2018 and 2019 Annual Members Meetings and by never electing a board at said meetings.

Chronology of Proceedings

September 21, 2020

Haining Xia files a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Resolution Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 20, 2020

The Department issues a Notice of Hearing.

January 7, 2021

The initial administrative hearing is held.

January 22, 2021

The ALJ issues a Decision denying the Petitioner’s Petition.

February 18, 2021

The Petitioner files a request for rehearing, citing errors of law and evidence.

March 23, 2021

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate issues an Order Granting Rehearing.

July 2, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

July 14, 2021

The ALJ issues the final Decision, declaring the Respondent the prevailing party and dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

Haining Xia’s case rested on several key arguments presented across both hearings.

• Primary Claim: The central assertion was that the Respondent was in “direct violation of HOA Bylaws Article 3.3, Article 4.1 and Article 4.4” because board elections were not held or even placed on the agenda for the 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

• Challenge to Condominium Termination: Mr. Xia actively disputed the validity of the Association’s termination as a condominium.

◦ He argued the “Condominium Termination Agreement” was invalid because it “does not contain valid signatures” and represented a “usurpation of corporate power.”

◦ He maintained that because he still holds the title to his unit and the sale has not been finalized, the condominium status could not be legally changed.

◦ He stated his intention to appeal a separate Maricopa County Superior Court ruling which had already upheld the termination agreement.

• Specific Meeting Grievances:

◦ 2018 Meeting: The annual meeting, scheduled for March, was delayed until August 2018. Its stated purpose was to vote on a special assessment, but Mr. Xia asserted there was “not a valid board for that meeting.”

◦ 2019 Meeting: This meeting was held to discuss the termination agreement, but Mr. Xia claimed there was “no election of board members or appointment of officers.”

• Stated Objective: The petitioner requested “a definitive answer as to whether there were valid corporate officers” and, in the rehearing, stated he “wants a finding that there was no legitimate board and no officers appointed.”

• Personal Motivation: During the rehearing, Mr. Xia asserted that he is the only homeowner “who stood up to fight,” that he is fighting “evil,” and is “looking for justice.”

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Dorsey Place Condominium Association’s defense was primarily procedural and jurisdictional.

• Jurisdictional Challenge: The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the OAH lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.

◦ The basis for this argument was that the Association’s status as a “Condominium” was terminated via a “Condominium Termination Agreement” recorded on April 9, 2019.

◦ As the entity no longer met the legal definition of a condominium under A.R.S. §33-1202(10), the OAH had no authority to hear a dispute between it and a unit owner.

• Superior Court Precedent: The Respondent emphasized that the validity of the termination agreement had already been adjudicated and upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The ALJ noted that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that ruling.”

• Mootness: The Respondent argued that since the termination, the property is “currently being utilized as an apartment complex,” making the petitioner’s claims moot.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The decisions issued by ALJ Sondra J. Vanella focused squarely on the legal standard of proof required of the petitioner.

The ALJ repeatedly established that the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Failure to Present Evidence: The ALJ found that Mr. Xia “failed to present any evidence at hearing, documentary or otherwise, but rather relied solely on his own assertions.”

• Conclusion: The petitioner did not meet his burden of proof to establish a violation of the specified bylaws.

• Order: The Petition was denied.

• Basis for Rehearing: The rehearing was granted based on the petitioner’s claim of “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.”

• Evidence at Rehearing: Mr. Xia submitted several documents, including meeting notices for 2018 and 2019, an “Action by Written Consent,” and a “Board Resolution Filling Director and Officer Vacancies.” However, he “did not provide an explanation of the documents at hearing or testimony concerning the documents.”

• Final Conclusion: After reviewing all evidence from both hearings, the ALJ concluded that the petitioner “failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation.” Critically, the ALJ noted that Mr. Xia “failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years [2018 and 2019].”

• Final Order: The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. This order is binding unless appealed to the superior court within 35 days.

Relevant Bylaw Articles

The petition was based on alleged violations of the following articles from the Dorsey Place Condominium Association Bylaws:

Article

Key Provision

Annual Members Meeting

States that at each annual meeting, “the Members shall elect the Board and transact such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting.”

Election

Stipulates that the Association’s affairs are managed by the Board and that “each director shall be elected at the annual meeting of Members concurrent with the expiration of the term of the director he or she is to succeed.”

Annual Board Meetings

Requires that “within thirty (30) days after each annual meeting of Members, the newly elected directors shall meet forthwith for the purpose of organization, the election of officers, and the transaction of other business.”






Study Guide – 21F-H2120016-REL


Study Guide: Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association

This guide reviews the administrative case between Haining Xia (Petitioner) and the Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It covers the core allegations, legal arguments, procedural history, and final rulings.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties in this case and what are their roles?

2. What specific violations of the association’s Bylaws did the Petitioner allege?

3. What was the Respondent’s primary legal argument for why the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction?

4. According to the case documents, what is the legal standard known as “preponderance of the evidence”?

5. What was the initial ruling by the Administrative Law Judge on January 22, 2021, and what was the key reason for this decision?

6. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing of the case?

7. What evidence did the Petitioner submit during the rehearing on July 2, 2021?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge state that the Office of Administrative Hearings could not invalidate the “Condominium Termination Agreement”?

9. What specific requirements for annual meetings are outlined in Article 3.3 of the Respondent’s Bylaws?

10. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as detailed in the order dated July 14, 2021?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Haining Xia, the Petitioner, and Dorsey Place Condominium Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is the unit owner who filed a dispute petition, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association accused of violating its own Bylaws.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4. He claimed the Respondent never elected a board at its Annual Members Meetings for 2018 and 2019 and that board elections were not included on the agendas for those meetings.

3. The Respondent argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction because the association’s condominium status was terminated in April 2019 via a “Condominium Termination Agreement.” As it was no longer legally a condominium, the Respondent claimed it did not meet the statutory requirements for OAH jurisdiction over such disputes.

4. The legal standard is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” It is also described as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

5. The initial ruling on January 22, 2021, denied the Petitioner’s Petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof because he presented no documentary evidence and relied solely on his own assertions to support his claims.

6. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that there was an “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted this request.

7. During the rehearing, the Petitioner submitted Annual Membership Meeting Notices for 2018 and 2019, a document titled “Action by Written Consent of a Majority of the Unit Owners,” and a November 16, 2018, Board Resolution. However, he did not provide testimony or an explanation concerning these documents.

8. The Administrative Law Judge advised the Petitioner that the validity of the termination agreement had already been adjudicated and upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The Office of Administrative Hearings does not have the legal authority to overturn or modify a ruling from the Superior Court.

9. Article 3.3 states that the annual meeting of Members shall be held in March each year, though it can be delayed until May 31. The purpose of this meeting is for the Members to elect the Board and transact other business that may properly be brought before the meeting.

10. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge again ruled against the Petitioner, ordering that his appeal be dismissed and naming the Respondent as the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the Petitioner once again failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation of the Bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the jurisdictional challenge raised by the Respondent. How did the “Condominium Termination Agreement” of April 2019 fundamentally alter the legal status of the property and impact the proceedings before the Office of Administrative Hearings?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain in detail why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, beginning with the filing of the petition on September 21, 2020, and ending with the final order on July 14, 2021. Identify the key events, decisions, and legal reasonings at each stage.

4. Evaluate the different arguments made by the Petitioner, including his claims about invalid board elections, the legitimacy of the termination agreement, and his status as a titled owner. Explain why the Office of Administrative Hearings was limited in its authority to rule on certain aspects of his claims.

5. Based on Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4, describe the prescribed process for electing the Board of Directors and conducting annual meetings. How did the Petitioner’s specific allegations in his petition directly challenge whether the Respondent had followed these procedures?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Sondra J. Vanella.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts other than those alleged by the petitioner which, if proven by the respondent, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the respondent’s otherwise unlawful conduct. The respondent bears the burden of proof for affirmative defenses.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of laws for the state of Arizona.

Bylaws

The set of rules governing the internal management and affairs of an organization, such as a homeowners’ association. The Petitioner alleged violations of Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4 of the Respondent’s Bylaws.

Condominium Termination Agreement

A legal document recorded on April 9, 2019, that officially terminated the condominium status of Dorsey Place. The Respondent argued this action removed it from the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings for condominium disputes.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and residents. The Dorsey Place Condominium Association is the HOA in this case.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Respondent challenged the OAH’s jurisdiction on the basis that it was no longer legally a condominium.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request made by a party to a court or other tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

A state agency that conducts hearings for other state agencies. In this case, the OAH conducted the hearing for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petition

The formal written request filed by the Petitioner to initiate the dispute resolution process with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner is Haining Xia.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The burden of proof in this civil case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” and as evidence that has “the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Respondent is the Dorsey Place Condominium Association.

Superior Court

A state trial court of general jurisdiction. The Maricopa County Superior Court had previously issued a ruling upholding the validity of the Condominium Termination Agreement.






Blog Post – 21F-H2120016-REL


He Fought His HOA and Lost—Twice. 3 Costly Mistakes Every Homeowner Should Avoid.

The Frustration and the Fight

For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of immense frustration. Rules can feel arbitrary, and board decisions can seem opaque. It’s a common feeling to believe the HOA is in the wrong and to want to stand up for your rights. But what happens when that conviction meets the cold, hard reality of the legal system?

The case of Haining Xia versus the Dorsey Place Condominium Association serves as a powerful cautionary tale for any homeowner considering a legal challenge. Mr. Xia’s core complaint was straightforward and, on its face, seemed reasonable: he alleged that his HOA violated its own bylaws by failing to hold board elections during its 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.

Despite his strong convictions, he lost his case. He was then granted a rehearing—a rare second chance—and lost again. This article explores the surprising and crucial lessons from his defeat, revealing why simply being right in principle is often not enough to win in practice.

1. Conviction Is Not Evidence

The single biggest reason for Mr. Xia’s failure was his inability to provide proof for his claims. In the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was stark: the petitioner “failed to present any evidence at hearing, documentary or otherwise, but rather relied solely on his own assertions.”

Herein lies the central mistake for any potential litigant: in a legal proceeding, the outcome isn’t determined by who feels most wronged, but by who can meet the required standard of proof. In this case, that standard was the “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal definition clarifies this standard:

“The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Think of it as the scales of justice. Your evidence doesn’t need to slam one side to the ground, but it must be strong enough to tip the scale, even slightly, in your favor. Mr. Xia arrived with only his convictions, which carry no weight on the scale.

During the rehearing, his testimony was filled with passionate statements, asserting that he was the only homeowner “who stood up to fight,” that he was fighting “evil,” and was simply “looking for justice.” These heartfelt convictions, however, were met with the judge’s blunt conclusion that he failed to meet his evidentiary burden. This reveals a critical lesson: in a legal setting, the passion of one’s convictions is irrelevant without factual, documentary proof to back them up.

2. Fight the Right Battle in the Right Courtroom

A significant portion of Mr. Xia’s case was derailed by a fundamental strategic error. The HOA’s attorney argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)—the body hearing the dispute—had no power over the case because the property had ceased to be a condominium in 2019 pursuant to a “Condominium Termination Agreement.”

In response, Mr. Xia tried to argue that this termination agreement was invalid, claiming it “does not contain valid signatures” and was a “usurpation of corporate power.” This was the wrong argument to make in the wrong place.

The Administrative Law Judge explicitly advised him that the validity of the termination agreement had already been decided by a higher court, the Maricopa County Superior Court. The judge stated plainly that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that ruling.”

This wasn’t just a procedural mistake; it was a credibility-damaging tactical blunder. By focusing on an issue the court had no power to address, he appeared unprepared and distracted from the one claim he was actually there to prove. This strategic error likely damaged his credibility with the judge from the outset, underscoring the importance of understanding a court’s specific jurisdiction before you ever step foot inside.

3. A Second Chance Requires a New Strategy, Not Just New Documents

Being granted a rehearing is a significant opportunity in any legal dispute. Mr. Xia was granted this second chance after citing a specific “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” This wasn’t a general appeal to fairness; it was a procedural opening that offered a rare chance to correct the flaws of his first attempt.

Unfortunately, he failed to capitalize on it. While he did submit documents in the second hearing, the judge noted a fatal flaw in his presentation: he “did not provide an explanation of the documents at hearing or testimony concerning the documents.”

Submitting a stack of papers is not the same as building a case. Evidence doesn’t speak for itself. Each document needed a narrative. Mr. Xia should have walked the judge through each paper, explaining: “This is the notice for the 2018 meeting. As you can see, an election is not on the agenda, which violates Bylaw 3.3. This document proves my specific claim.” Without that narrative, he just presented a puzzle with no solution.

The final, unambiguous conclusion from the second hearing was that the “Petitioner failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years.” The key takeaway is clear: a procedural victory like a rehearing is meaningless if the fundamental flaws in your case—in this instance, a lack of compelling, well-explained evidence—are not corrected.

From Principle to Proof

Mr. Xia’s journey shows a fatal progression: he began with a case built on feeling instead of fact, tried to fight it in the wrong court over a settled issue, and when given a rare chance to fix these fundamental errors, he failed to change his approach. It’s a story of how a lack of preparation can doom a case from start to finish.

This case is a stark reminder that in the eyes of the law, a right that cannot be proven does not exist. Before you begin your fight, ask yourself: are you prepared to prove your case, not just believe in it?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Haining Xia (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nick Nogami (attorney)
    Dorsey Place Condominium Association
    Represented Respondent
  • Edith Rudder (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Listed on service list

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge for initial hearing and rehearing
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner who issued Order Granting Rehearing
  • Daniel Martin (judge)
    Referenced regarding a prior Minute Entry

Debra K Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-01-08
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Debra K. Morin Counsel —
Respondent Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc. Counsel Lydia A. Perce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain her burden to establish a violation by Solera of the governing documents regarding the maintenance of Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS). The Tribunal dismissed the Petition and the subsequent Rehearing Appeal, finding Solera was in compliance with CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Solera violated its governing documents. The CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to be the "sole judge" as to appropriate maintenance, repair, and replacement of all AREAS.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS) in good condition and repair at all times

Petitioner alleged that Solera failed to meet the maintenance standard required by CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, citing various examples of disrepair, including weeds, sidewalks, and streets, and arguing the same standard applied to homeowners must apply to the HOA. The Tribunal rejected this, finding that the CC&Rs designate the Board as the sole judge regarding appropriate maintenance, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show a violation.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, including CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, and the Petition/Rehearing Appeal was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1
  • CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Maintenance, CC&Rs, Jurisdiction, Burden of Proof, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1
  • CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020051-REL-RHG Decision – 847175.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:09 (246.5 KB)

20F-H2020051-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020051-REL/816310.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:57:02 (199.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative law case involving a homeowner, Debra K. Morin (Petitioner), and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent/Solera). The case centered on the Petitioner’s allegations that the HOA failed to maintain common areas to the standards required by its own governing documents.

The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition, with the primary surviving issue being that Solera, its Board of Directors, and its management company were not maintaining the “Areas of Association Responsibility” (AREAS) in good condition and repair at all times. The Petitioner’s core argument was that the same stringent maintenance standard applied to individual homeowners must be equally applied to the HOA. She provided extensive photographic evidence of issues such as weeds, deteriorating sidewalks, street disrepair, and exposed wiring.

The HOA defended its actions by citing its established procedures for maintenance, including a committee review process, a scheduled Reserves plan, and the use of licensed contractors. Critically, Solera’s defense rested on provisions within its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which grant the Board of Directors the exclusive right to interpret the CC&Rs and designate it as the “sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement” of all common areas.

Following an initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner had not met the burden of proof. The ALJ ruled that under the governing documents, the HOA Board has sole discretion in maintenance matters, and the Petitioner’s subjective opinions on how and when work should be done were not relevant to determining a violation. The Petitioner was granted a rehearing, where she presented additional evidence and arguments. However, the ALJ upheld the original decision, reaffirming that the CC&Rs grant the Board authority superseding that of an individual homeowner in determining appropriate maintenance. The petition was dismissed, and Solera was deemed the prevailing party in both instances.

Case Overview

Case Name

Debra K. Morin, Petitioner, v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

No. 20F-H2020051-REL / 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Kay Abramsohn

Petitioner

Debra K. Morin (represented herself)

Respondent

Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (represented by Lydia Linsmeier, Esq.)

Petition Filed

On or about March 12, 2020

Initial Hearing

May 20, 2020 and July 15, 2020

Initial Decision

August 19, 2020 (Petition Dismissed)

Rehearing Hearing

December 16, 2020

Rehearing Decision

January 8, 2021 (Original Dismissal Upheld)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The Petitioner, a resident of Solera for four years, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging violations of Solera’s Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, CC&Rs, and Rules and Regulations (R&Rs). The allegations were organized into two primary issues.

Issue #1: Lack of Direct Communication

• Allegation: Solera, its Board, and its management company, Premier Management Company (Premier), “do not allow direct communication from homeowners.”

• Requested Relief: The Petitioner sought to have this “policy” rescinded.

• Outcome: This issue was connected to allegations of ethics violations based on the Board’s Code of Ethics, which the Tribunal determined was a non-governing document outside its jurisdiction. As a result, the Petitioner withdrew Issue #1 during the May 20, 2020 hearing.

Issue #2: Failure to Maintain Common Areas

• Allegation: Solera, its Board, and Premier “are not providing oversight to the General Manager in maintaining all Areas of Association Responsibility … in good condition and repair at all times.” Specific complaints included “uncontrolled weeds” and poor maintenance of the Community Center and other AREAS.

• Core Argument: The Petitioner’s central thesis was that the HOA must be held to the identical maintenance standard it imposes on homeowners. She argued that just as homeowners are required to maintain their lots “in a weed free condition 365 days a year,” the HOA has no discretion for delays in addressing maintenance issues in common areas.

• Requested Relief:

1. A public admission by the Board of its failures to follow governing documents.

2. The establishment of “direct communication rules” for reporting management deficiencies.

3. Compliance monitoring by the “Real Estate Board.”

Evidence and Specific Complaints

The Petitioner presented over 80 photographs at the initial hearing (growing to 310 by the rehearing) and multiple emails to document a wide range of perceived maintenance failures.

Maintenance Issue

Petitioner’s Specific Complaint

Uncontrolled weeds in granite rock locations throughout the community.

Community Center

Poor exterior condition.

Streets & Curbs

Deteriorating asphalt, cracking, and issues with sealing.

Sidewalks

Trip hazards and disintegrating cool-decking.

Drainage

Clogged storm drains and water pooling issues.

Landscaping

Exposed wiring for lights, exposed drip irrigation lines, and unremoved tree stumps.

Disrepair of boundary walls.

A key piece of evidence was a February 21, 2020 email exchange regarding weeds, which the ALJ found “representative of the overall situation.”

Petitioner’s Complaint: “This is NOT being done and our HOA looks disgusting with the continued presence of unchecked weeds inside and outside our community! No excuses, you cannot hold homeowners to a higher standard than you are willing to do for our HOA. You are on notice to rectify this violation immediately!”

General Manager’s Response: “…the landscape crew hula hoes and sprays daily, based on routine maintenance cycle and location of site work… Considering that we have 1,143,550 square feet of granite and 270,933 square feet of turf, the maintenance of weeds is a continuous and ongoing concern that is constantly being addressed.”

Petitioner’s Rebuttal: “YOUR response is just more excuses!… It appears that since it is not your personal money being spent, it is ok to have substandard work performance.”

Respondent’s Position and Defense

Solera HOA moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the issues were outside the Department’s jurisdiction and the requested relief could not be granted. While the motion was effectively denied after Issue #1 was withdrawn, Solera’s core defense remained consistent throughout the proceedings.

• Central Legal Argument: Solera contended that its Board of Directors is vested with the ultimate authority on maintenance matters by the community’s governing documents. It repeatedly cited CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which states the Board “shall be the sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all [AREAS].”

• Interpretation Authority: The HOA also pointed to CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5, which gives it the “exclusive right to construe and interpret the provisions of the [CC&Rs],” with such interpretations being “final, conclusive and binding.”

• Operational Defense: Denise Frazier, Solera’s on-site general manager, testified that the HOA has established processes for maintenance.

◦ Committee Structure: A Building and Grounds Committee (B&G) reviews projects, which are then assessed by a Finance Committee before going to the Board for approval.

◦ Reserves Schedule: Solera maintains a Reserves schedule for large projects, such as sidewalk repairs (every 4 years), street repairs (every 8 years), and sealing cracks (every 2 years).

◦ Vendor Management: The Board relies on licensed contractors for specialized work, including landscaping, tree trimming (by two different companies for different heights), and stump grinding.

• Response to Specific Issues:

◦ Weeds: Frazier attributed the prevalence of weeds in early 2020 to an unusual amount of rain, creating “optimal” conditions. She noted that Solera had instructed landscapers to use dye in the weed spray to demonstrate to residents that spraying was occurring.

◦ Sidewalks: Frazier acknowledged a several-month delay in repairing a specific sidewalk area but stated that warning cones had been placed in the interim. Solera uses a ¼ inch standard for review but the City of Chandler’s ½ inch trip-hazard guideline for repairs.

◦ Exposed Wiring: This was explained as a temporary measure by landscapers to avoid cutting electrical and irrigation lines during tree and granite replacement projects.

Rulings and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner’s case after the initial hearing and reaffirmed this dismissal after a rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet her legal burden of proof.

Key Legal Principles Applied

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that the Petitioner “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a respondent has violated the planned community document(s’) provisions.”

• Supremacy of Governing Documents: The case was decided on the interpretation of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which function as the binding contract between the association and its members.

• Board’s Discretionary Authority: The central and decisive legal conclusion was that the HOA’s governing documents explicitly grant the Board superior authority over maintenance decisions.

◦ CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1 (“sole judge”) was interpreted to mean that only Solera is charged with determining when and how to perform maintenance, repair, and replacement in common areas.

◦ The ALJ concluded this provision “lifts the Board’s authority above that of a homeowner.” The Petitioner failed to provide legal support for her argument that the same maintenance standard must be applied to the Board as is applied to homeowners.

• Jurisdictional Limits: The Tribunal’s role is limited to adjudicating alleged violations of governing documents or statutes. The ALJ noted that a “homeowner’s dissatisfaction with management is not within the purview of this process or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”

Final Order

The ALJ concluded that Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, including the critical CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. The Petitioner’s subjective opinions about the timeliness or quality of repairs were deemed irrelevant in the face of the Board’s contractual authority to be the “sole judge.”

Initial Order (August 19, 2020): “IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed and Solera is deemed the prevailing party.”

Rehearing Order (January 8, 2021): “IT IS ORDERED that Solera is the prevailing party with regard to the Rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed.” The order was declared binding on the parties.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

This guide provides a review of the administrative case between Debra K. Morin (Petitioner) and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent), as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decision of August 19, 2020, and the subsequent Rehearing Decision of January 8, 2021.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What were the two main issues the petitioner, Debra K. Morin, raised in her initial petition filed on March 12, 2020?

3. Why was the petitioner’s first issue, regarding direct communication, withdrawn during the initial hearing?

4. What was the petitioner’s central argument regarding the maintenance standard that Solera should be held to?

5. According to the CC&Rs, what specific authority does the Solera Board have regarding maintenance, which formed the core of its defense?

6. What type of evidence did the petitioner primarily use to document her claims of poor maintenance in the Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS)?

7. Who is Denise Frazier, and what role did she play in the proceedings?

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision in the initial hearing on August 19, 2020?

9. On what grounds did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grant the petitioner’s request for a rehearing?

10. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing decision was issued on January 8, 2021?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Debra K. Morin, the Petitioner and a homeowner, and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Solera), the Respondent. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn, and Solera was represented by Premier Management Company and its on-site general manager.

2. The petitioner’s Issue #1 alleged that Solera, its Board, and its management company “do not allow direct communication from homeowners.” Issue #2 alleged they were not providing oversight to the General Manager in maintaining all Areas of Association Responsibility in good condition and repair at all times.

3. The petitioner withdrew Issue #1 after it was determined that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not include interpreting or applying non-governing documents. Her complaint was based on the Solera Code of Ethics, which the Tribunal could not consider.

4. The petitioner argued that the same maintenance standard must be applied to Solera as is applied to homeowners. She contended that if homeowners are required by the governing documents to maintain their lots “in good condition and repair at all times,” then the HOA must be held to the identical standard for common areas (AREAS).

5. Solera’s defense centered on CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which states the Board “shall be the sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all [AREAS].” Additionally, CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5 gives Solera the exclusive right to construe and interpret the CC&Rs.

6. The petitioner presented a large volume of photographic evidence, including over eighty photos for the initial hearing and more for the rehearing. These photographs were intended to document weeds, issues with sidewalks, exposed wiring, storm drains, and other maintenance problems in the common areas.

7. Denise Frazier is the on-site general manager for Solera and an employee of Premier Management Company. She testified on behalf of Solera regarding its maintenance schedules, procedures, reserve studies, and responses to the specific issues raised by the petitioner.

8. In the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petitioner’s petition and deemed Solera the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of the governing documents, as the CC&Rs grant the Board sole judgment on maintenance matters.

9. The request for a rehearing was granted because the petitioner claimed there were irregularities in the proceedings, misconduct by the prevailing party, and that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not supported by the evidence or contrary to law.

10. The rehearing affirmed the original decision. The Administrative Law Judge again concluded that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof and that Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, specifically CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. The appeal was dismissed, and Solera was again named the prevailing party.

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case by contrasting the petitioner’s interpretation of CC&R Article 7, Section 7.2 with the respondent’s defense based on CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1 and Article 9, Section 9.5. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this interpretive dispute?

2. Discuss the concept of jurisdiction as it applied to this case. Explain why certain arguments and evidence presented by the petitioner—such as the Board’s Code of Ethics, Premier Management Company standards, and City of Chandler ordinances—were deemed outside the Tribunal’s authority to consider.

3. Evaluate the petitioner’s strategy and use of evidence. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of relying heavily on photographic evidence and detailed email complaints. Why did this “enormity” of evidence ultimately fail to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard?

4. Explain the significance of the phrase “sole judge” in CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. How does this clause grant discretionary authority to the HOA Board, and how did it function as the key element in defeating the petitioner’s claim?

5. Trace the procedural history of the case, from the initial Petition and Motion to Dismiss through the original hearing, the Decision, the Rehearing Request, and the final Rehearing Decision. Identify the key rulings and turning points that determined the ultimate outcome.

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge presiding over the administrative hearing at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Judge Kay Abramsohn.

AREAS (Areas of Association Responsibility)

The common areas within the Solera development that the Homeowners’ Association is responsible for managing, maintaining, repairing, and replacing.

By-Laws

One of the governing documents for the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association.

CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A primary governing document for the Solera development, specifically the “Solera Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Springfield Lakes.” It outlines the rights and responsibilities of the homeowners and the association.

Denise Frazier

The on-site general manager for Solera, employed by Premier Management Company, who testified on behalf of the association regarding its maintenance operations.

Maintenance Standard

Defined in CC&R Article 1, Section 1.30 as “the standard of maintenance of Improvements established from time to time by the Board and/or the Architectural Review Committee in the Design Guidelines, or in the absence of any such standards, the standards of maintenance of Improvements generally prevailing through the Project.”

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by Solera asking the Department of Real Estate to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the issues were outside the Department’s jurisdiction and the requested relief could not be granted.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Debra K. Morin, a homeowner in Solera.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof in this administrative proceeding. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

Premier Management Company

The management company hired by Solera to handle day-to-day operations of the community.

Project Documents

The set of governing documents for the community, defined as the CC&Rs, any supplemental declarations, the By-Laws, the R&Rs, and the Design Guidelines.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

R&Rs (Rules and Regulations)

One of the governing documents for the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), where the hearing was conducted.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG


A Homeowner Took on Her HOA with Over 300 Photos of Evidence. The Reason She Lost Is a Warning for Everyone.

Introduction: The Familiar Fight

It’s a scenario familiar to millions of Americans living in planned communities. You receive a violation notice for a minor infraction on your property, yet when you look at the common areas your HOA is responsible for, you see overgrown weeds, cracked sidewalks, and general disrepair. It feels deeply unfair. Why are homeowners held to a strict standard while the association itself seems to neglect its duties?

This exact frustration drove Debra K. Morin to take on her Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association. Armed with over 300 photographs documenting every weed and crack, she was certain her case was airtight. But she lost. The reasons why her case failed are a stark warning for any homeowner, revealing a legal battle that hinged entirely on the community’s binding contract: the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

The 5 Surprising Lessons from One Homeowner’s HOA Lawsuit

1. The “Sole Judge” Clause: Your HOA’s Ultimate Defense

The single most critical factor in this case was a single clause buried in the HOA’s governing documents. Ms. Morin argued that the HOA must “maintain in good condition and repair at all times” the common areas, believing this was the same standard applied to homeowners. However, the HOA pointed to CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which designates the HOA Board as the “sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement” of all common areas.

This clause proved to be an almost impenetrable defense. In essence, the legal standard for maintenance was not what a “reasonable person” would consider good repair, but whatever the Board, in its exclusive judgment, decided was appropriate. Even with extensive photo evidence, the case failed because the contract Ms. Morin agreed to when she bought her home gave the Board the ultimate discretion. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision made this crystal clear:

“While the CC&Rs allow an owner to bring to the Board a complaint, the CC&Rs specify that the Board is the sole judge regarding appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all AREAS.”

This “sole judge” clause is the cornerstone of a much broader power imbalance, one that is codified throughout the governing documents.

2. A Power Imbalance Is Written into the Rules

While Ms. Morin argued for an equal standard of responsibility, the legal documents revealed a clear and intentional power imbalance. CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5, granted the HOA the “exclusive right to construe and interpret the provisions of the [CC&Rs],” and stated that its interpretation is “final, conclusive and binding.”

This structure legally transforms the relationship from a partnership of equals into one of administrator and subject, where one party holds the power of final interpretation. The governing documents describe in detail how the HOA can levy penalties against an owner for violations, but they provide no equivalent process for an owner to penalize the HOA for its failures. The judge in the rehearing decision explicitly summarized this built-in hierarchy:

“Thus, it is clear, that pursuant to the governing documents, the Board’s authority is lifted above that of a homeowner.”

With the Board’s authority so clearly established, Ms. Morin’s mountain of evidence was about to run into a contractual brick wall.

3. An “Enormity of Evidence” Isn’t Always the Right Evidence

Ms. Morin presented a significant volume of evidence, starting with over 80 photographs in the first hearing and later referencing what she called an “enormity” of evidence totaling over 300 pictures of weeds, damaged sidewalks, and other maintenance issues.

The critical legal distinction the judge made was that the photographs documented the condition of the common areas, but they did not prove a violation of the governing documents. The legal question was not, “Are there weeds?” The question was, “Did the Board violate a contract that explicitly makes it the sole judge of maintenance?” This demonstrates that in a contract dispute, the quality of evidence is defined by its relevance to the specific contractual terms, not its sheer volume.

4. “At All Times” Doesn’t Mean “Instantly”

A key part of the homeowner’s argument was that the HOA was failing to “maintain in good condition and repair at all times” by allowing maintenance issues to persist for months. In response, the HOA detailed its operational reality. The HOA provided evidence of long-term capital plans, such as sealing street cracks every two years and major sidewalk repairs on a four-year cycle. Daily tasks, like weed control, were handled by landscape crews operating on a continuous, rotating schedule across the large community.

From a legal perspective, “at all times” is interpreted through the lens of operational reasonableness for a large entity, not as a guarantee of immediate perfection. For an organization managing a vast property, this standard is met through consistent processes and schedules, not by fixing every issue the moment it is reported.

5. Your Dissatisfaction Is Not a Lawsuit

At its heart, the case was driven by Ms. Morin’s deep frustration. The judge recognized that her petition stemmed from a core belief that the Board and its General Manager were unresponsive and providing poor oversight. While these feelings may have been valid, they were not legally actionable on their own. The judge’s decision in the rehearing drew a firm line between a homeowner’s frustration and a legal claim:

“However, a homeowner’s dissatisfaction with management is not within the purview of this process or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”

This highlights a common misconception: while feelings of poor customer service are valid, they are legally irrelevant unless they can be tied to a specific, provable breach of the governing documents or a violation of state law.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Read Before You Sign

The primary lesson from this case is the absolute authority of a community’s governing documents. In any dispute, the specific, written words of the CC&Rs—the contract you sign when you buy your home—will almost always outweigh a homeowner’s subjective standards, sense of fairness, or even a mountain of photographic evidence.

This case serves as a powerful reminder that from a contractual standpoint, the rules are not always designed to be “fair,” but to be enforceable. It leaves every homeowner with a critical question:

Before you complain about your HOA, have you read the rulebook they’re playing by—and that you agreed to?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Debra K. Morin (petitioner)
    Self-represented

Respondent Side

  • Lydia A. Perce Linsmeier (respondent attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
  • Denise Frazier (general manager/witness)
    Premier Management Company
    On-site general manager for Solera, employed by Premier Management Company

Neutral Parties

  • Kay Abramsohn (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
    Transmitted original decision

Debra K Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-01-08
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Debra K. Morin Counsel —
Respondent Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc. Counsel Lydia A. Perce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, specifically CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, concluding that the Board is the 'sole judge' regarding appropriate maintenance of AREAS. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the Rehearing Petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden to establish a violation. The governing documents grant the Board 'the sole judge' authority over maintenance, and Petitioner did not provide legal support requiring the HOA to meet the homeowner maintenance standard.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS) in good condition and repair at all times

Petitioner alleged that Solera failed to maintain Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS) in good condition and repair at all times, arguing that the same strict maintenance standard applied to homeowners (CC&R 7.2) should apply to the HOA (CC&R 7.1). The issue was heard on rehearing after the initial decision dismissed the petition.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded Solera was in compliance with its governing documents and was the prevailing party. Petitioner's appeal (Rehearing Petition) was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. 33-1801 et seq.
  • A.R.S. §§ 32-2102
  • A.R.S. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.R.S. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1
  • CC&R Article 7, Section 7.2
  • CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-116

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Maintenance Standard, Areas of Association Responsibility, Rehearing, Sole Judge
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. 33-1801 et seq.
  • A.R.S. §§ 32-2102
  • A.R.S. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.R.S. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1
  • CC&R Article 7, Section 7.2
  • CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-116

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020051-REL-RHG Decision – 847175.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:20 (246.5 KB)

20F-H2020051-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020051-REL/816310.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:23 (199.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative law case involving a homeowner, Debra K. Morin (Petitioner), and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent/Solera). The case centered on the Petitioner’s allegations that the HOA failed to maintain common areas to the standards required by its own governing documents.

The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition, with the primary surviving issue being that Solera, its Board of Directors, and its management company were not maintaining the “Areas of Association Responsibility” (AREAS) in good condition and repair at all times. The Petitioner’s core argument was that the same stringent maintenance standard applied to individual homeowners must be equally applied to the HOA. She provided extensive photographic evidence of issues such as weeds, deteriorating sidewalks, street disrepair, and exposed wiring.

The HOA defended its actions by citing its established procedures for maintenance, including a committee review process, a scheduled Reserves plan, and the use of licensed contractors. Critically, Solera’s defense rested on provisions within its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which grant the Board of Directors the exclusive right to interpret the CC&Rs and designate it as the “sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement” of all common areas.

Following an initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner had not met the burden of proof. The ALJ ruled that under the governing documents, the HOA Board has sole discretion in maintenance matters, and the Petitioner’s subjective opinions on how and when work should be done were not relevant to determining a violation. The Petitioner was granted a rehearing, where she presented additional evidence and arguments. However, the ALJ upheld the original decision, reaffirming that the CC&Rs grant the Board authority superseding that of an individual homeowner in determining appropriate maintenance. The petition was dismissed, and Solera was deemed the prevailing party in both instances.

Case Overview

Case Name

Debra K. Morin, Petitioner, v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

No. 20F-H2020051-REL / 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Kay Abramsohn

Petitioner

Debra K. Morin (represented herself)

Respondent

Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (represented by Lydia Linsmeier, Esq.)

Petition Filed

On or about March 12, 2020

Initial Hearing

May 20, 2020 and July 15, 2020

Initial Decision

August 19, 2020 (Petition Dismissed)

Rehearing Hearing

December 16, 2020

Rehearing Decision

January 8, 2021 (Original Dismissal Upheld)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The Petitioner, a resident of Solera for four years, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging violations of Solera’s Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, CC&Rs, and Rules and Regulations (R&Rs). The allegations were organized into two primary issues.

Issue #1: Lack of Direct Communication

• Allegation: Solera, its Board, and its management company, Premier Management Company (Premier), “do not allow direct communication from homeowners.”

• Requested Relief: The Petitioner sought to have this “policy” rescinded.

• Outcome: This issue was connected to allegations of ethics violations based on the Board’s Code of Ethics, which the Tribunal determined was a non-governing document outside its jurisdiction. As a result, the Petitioner withdrew Issue #1 during the May 20, 2020 hearing.

Issue #2: Failure to Maintain Common Areas

• Allegation: Solera, its Board, and Premier “are not providing oversight to the General Manager in maintaining all Areas of Association Responsibility … in good condition and repair at all times.” Specific complaints included “uncontrolled weeds” and poor maintenance of the Community Center and other AREAS.

• Core Argument: The Petitioner’s central thesis was that the HOA must be held to the identical maintenance standard it imposes on homeowners. She argued that just as homeowners are required to maintain their lots “in a weed free condition 365 days a year,” the HOA has no discretion for delays in addressing maintenance issues in common areas.

• Requested Relief:

1. A public admission by the Board of its failures to follow governing documents.

2. The establishment of “direct communication rules” for reporting management deficiencies.

3. Compliance monitoring by the “Real Estate Board.”

Evidence and Specific Complaints

The Petitioner presented over 80 photographs at the initial hearing (growing to 310 by the rehearing) and multiple emails to document a wide range of perceived maintenance failures.

Maintenance Issue

Petitioner’s Specific Complaint

Uncontrolled weeds in granite rock locations throughout the community.

Community Center

Poor exterior condition.

Streets & Curbs

Deteriorating asphalt, cracking, and issues with sealing.

Sidewalks

Trip hazards and disintegrating cool-decking.

Drainage

Clogged storm drains and water pooling issues.

Landscaping

Exposed wiring for lights, exposed drip irrigation lines, and unremoved tree stumps.

Disrepair of boundary walls.

A key piece of evidence was a February 21, 2020 email exchange regarding weeds, which the ALJ found “representative of the overall situation.”

Petitioner’s Complaint: “This is NOT being done and our HOA looks disgusting with the continued presence of unchecked weeds inside and outside our community! No excuses, you cannot hold homeowners to a higher standard than you are willing to do for our HOA. You are on notice to rectify this violation immediately!”

General Manager’s Response: “…the landscape crew hula hoes and sprays daily, based on routine maintenance cycle and location of site work… Considering that we have 1,143,550 square feet of granite and 270,933 square feet of turf, the maintenance of weeds is a continuous and ongoing concern that is constantly being addressed.”

Petitioner’s Rebuttal: “YOUR response is just more excuses!… It appears that since it is not your personal money being spent, it is ok to have substandard work performance.”

Respondent’s Position and Defense

Solera HOA moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the issues were outside the Department’s jurisdiction and the requested relief could not be granted. While the motion was effectively denied after Issue #1 was withdrawn, Solera’s core defense remained consistent throughout the proceedings.

• Central Legal Argument: Solera contended that its Board of Directors is vested with the ultimate authority on maintenance matters by the community’s governing documents. It repeatedly cited CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which states the Board “shall be the sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all [AREAS].”

• Interpretation Authority: The HOA also pointed to CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5, which gives it the “exclusive right to construe and interpret the provisions of the [CC&Rs],” with such interpretations being “final, conclusive and binding.”

• Operational Defense: Denise Frazier, Solera’s on-site general manager, testified that the HOA has established processes for maintenance.

◦ Committee Structure: A Building and Grounds Committee (B&G) reviews projects, which are then assessed by a Finance Committee before going to the Board for approval.

◦ Reserves Schedule: Solera maintains a Reserves schedule for large projects, such as sidewalk repairs (every 4 years), street repairs (every 8 years), and sealing cracks (every 2 years).

◦ Vendor Management: The Board relies on licensed contractors for specialized work, including landscaping, tree trimming (by two different companies for different heights), and stump grinding.

• Response to Specific Issues:

◦ Weeds: Frazier attributed the prevalence of weeds in early 2020 to an unusual amount of rain, creating “optimal” conditions. She noted that Solera had instructed landscapers to use dye in the weed spray to demonstrate to residents that spraying was occurring.

◦ Sidewalks: Frazier acknowledged a several-month delay in repairing a specific sidewalk area but stated that warning cones had been placed in the interim. Solera uses a ¼ inch standard for review but the City of Chandler’s ½ inch trip-hazard guideline for repairs.

◦ Exposed Wiring: This was explained as a temporary measure by landscapers to avoid cutting electrical and irrigation lines during tree and granite replacement projects.

Rulings and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner’s case after the initial hearing and reaffirmed this dismissal after a rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet her legal burden of proof.

Key Legal Principles Applied

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that the Petitioner “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a respondent has violated the planned community document(s’) provisions.”

• Supremacy of Governing Documents: The case was decided on the interpretation of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which function as the binding contract between the association and its members.

• Board’s Discretionary Authority: The central and decisive legal conclusion was that the HOA’s governing documents explicitly grant the Board superior authority over maintenance decisions.

◦ CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1 (“sole judge”) was interpreted to mean that only Solera is charged with determining when and how to perform maintenance, repair, and replacement in common areas.

◦ The ALJ concluded this provision “lifts the Board’s authority above that of a homeowner.” The Petitioner failed to provide legal support for her argument that the same maintenance standard must be applied to the Board as is applied to homeowners.

• Jurisdictional Limits: The Tribunal’s role is limited to adjudicating alleged violations of governing documents or statutes. The ALJ noted that a “homeowner’s dissatisfaction with management is not within the purview of this process or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”

Final Order

The ALJ concluded that Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, including the critical CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. The Petitioner’s subjective opinions about the timeliness or quality of repairs were deemed irrelevant in the face of the Board’s contractual authority to be the “sole judge.”

Initial Order (August 19, 2020): “IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed and Solera is deemed the prevailing party.”

Rehearing Order (January 8, 2021): “IT IS ORDERED that Solera is the prevailing party with regard to the Rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed.” The order was declared binding on the parties.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

This guide provides a review of the administrative case between Debra K. Morin (Petitioner) and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent), as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decision of August 19, 2020, and the subsequent Rehearing Decision of January 8, 2021.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What were the two main issues the petitioner, Debra K. Morin, raised in her initial petition filed on March 12, 2020?

3. Why was the petitioner’s first issue, regarding direct communication, withdrawn during the initial hearing?

4. What was the petitioner’s central argument regarding the maintenance standard that Solera should be held to?

5. According to the CC&Rs, what specific authority does the Solera Board have regarding maintenance, which formed the core of its defense?

6. What type of evidence did the petitioner primarily use to document her claims of poor maintenance in the Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS)?

7. Who is Denise Frazier, and what role did she play in the proceedings?

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision in the initial hearing on August 19, 2020?

9. On what grounds did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grant the petitioner’s request for a rehearing?

10. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing decision was issued on January 8, 2021?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Debra K. Morin, the Petitioner and a homeowner, and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Solera), the Respondent. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn, and Solera was represented by Premier Management Company and its on-site general manager.

2. The petitioner’s Issue #1 alleged that Solera, its Board, and its management company “do not allow direct communication from homeowners.” Issue #2 alleged they were not providing oversight to the General Manager in maintaining all Areas of Association Responsibility in good condition and repair at all times.

3. The petitioner withdrew Issue #1 after it was determined that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not include interpreting or applying non-governing documents. Her complaint was based on the Solera Code of Ethics, which the Tribunal could not consider.

4. The petitioner argued that the same maintenance standard must be applied to Solera as is applied to homeowners. She contended that if homeowners are required by the governing documents to maintain their lots “in good condition and repair at all times,” then the HOA must be held to the identical standard for common areas (AREAS).

5. Solera’s defense centered on CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which states the Board “shall be the sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all [AREAS].” Additionally, CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5 gives Solera the exclusive right to construe and interpret the CC&Rs.

6. The petitioner presented a large volume of photographic evidence, including over eighty photos for the initial hearing and more for the rehearing. These photographs were intended to document weeds, issues with sidewalks, exposed wiring, storm drains, and other maintenance problems in the common areas.

7. Denise Frazier is the on-site general manager for Solera and an employee of Premier Management Company. She testified on behalf of Solera regarding its maintenance schedules, procedures, reserve studies, and responses to the specific issues raised by the petitioner.

8. In the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petitioner’s petition and deemed Solera the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of the governing documents, as the CC&Rs grant the Board sole judgment on maintenance matters.

9. The request for a rehearing was granted because the petitioner claimed there were irregularities in the proceedings, misconduct by the prevailing party, and that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not supported by the evidence or contrary to law.

10. The rehearing affirmed the original decision. The Administrative Law Judge again concluded that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof and that Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, specifically CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. The appeal was dismissed, and Solera was again named the prevailing party.

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case by contrasting the petitioner’s interpretation of CC&R Article 7, Section 7.2 with the respondent’s defense based on CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1 and Article 9, Section 9.5. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this interpretive dispute?

2. Discuss the concept of jurisdiction as it applied to this case. Explain why certain arguments and evidence presented by the petitioner—such as the Board’s Code of Ethics, Premier Management Company standards, and City of Chandler ordinances—were deemed outside the Tribunal’s authority to consider.

3. Evaluate the petitioner’s strategy and use of evidence. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of relying heavily on photographic evidence and detailed email complaints. Why did this “enormity” of evidence ultimately fail to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard?

4. Explain the significance of the phrase “sole judge” in CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. How does this clause grant discretionary authority to the HOA Board, and how did it function as the key element in defeating the petitioner’s claim?

5. Trace the procedural history of the case, from the initial Petition and Motion to Dismiss through the original hearing, the Decision, the Rehearing Request, and the final Rehearing Decision. Identify the key rulings and turning points that determined the ultimate outcome.

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge presiding over the administrative hearing at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Judge Kay Abramsohn.

AREAS (Areas of Association Responsibility)

The common areas within the Solera development that the Homeowners’ Association is responsible for managing, maintaining, repairing, and replacing.

By-Laws

One of the governing documents for the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association.

CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A primary governing document for the Solera development, specifically the “Solera Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Springfield Lakes.” It outlines the rights and responsibilities of the homeowners and the association.

Denise Frazier

The on-site general manager for Solera, employed by Premier Management Company, who testified on behalf of the association regarding its maintenance operations.

Maintenance Standard

Defined in CC&R Article 1, Section 1.30 as “the standard of maintenance of Improvements established from time to time by the Board and/or the Architectural Review Committee in the Design Guidelines, or in the absence of any such standards, the standards of maintenance of Improvements generally prevailing through the Project.”

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by Solera asking the Department of Real Estate to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the issues were outside the Department’s jurisdiction and the requested relief could not be granted.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Debra K. Morin, a homeowner in Solera.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof in this administrative proceeding. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

Premier Management Company

The management company hired by Solera to handle day-to-day operations of the community.

Project Documents

The set of governing documents for the community, defined as the CC&Rs, any supplemental declarations, the By-Laws, the R&Rs, and the Design Guidelines.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

R&Rs (Rules and Regulations)

One of the governing documents for the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), where the hearing was conducted.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG


A Homeowner Took on Her HOA with Over 300 Photos of Evidence. The Reason She Lost Is a Warning for Everyone.

Introduction: The Familiar Fight

It’s a scenario familiar to millions of Americans living in planned communities. You receive a violation notice for a minor infraction on your property, yet when you look at the common areas your HOA is responsible for, you see overgrown weeds, cracked sidewalks, and general disrepair. It feels deeply unfair. Why are homeowners held to a strict standard while the association itself seems to neglect its duties?

This exact frustration drove Debra K. Morin to take on her Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association. Armed with over 300 photographs documenting every weed and crack, she was certain her case was airtight. But she lost. The reasons why her case failed are a stark warning for any homeowner, revealing a legal battle that hinged entirely on the community’s binding contract: the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

The 5 Surprising Lessons from One Homeowner’s HOA Lawsuit

1. The “Sole Judge” Clause: Your HOA’s Ultimate Defense

The single most critical factor in this case was a single clause buried in the HOA’s governing documents. Ms. Morin argued that the HOA must “maintain in good condition and repair at all times” the common areas, believing this was the same standard applied to homeowners. However, the HOA pointed to CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which designates the HOA Board as the “sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement” of all common areas.

This clause proved to be an almost impenetrable defense. In essence, the legal standard for maintenance was not what a “reasonable person” would consider good repair, but whatever the Board, in its exclusive judgment, decided was appropriate. Even with extensive photo evidence, the case failed because the contract Ms. Morin agreed to when she bought her home gave the Board the ultimate discretion. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision made this crystal clear:

“While the CC&Rs allow an owner to bring to the Board a complaint, the CC&Rs specify that the Board is the sole judge regarding appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all AREAS.”

This “sole judge” clause is the cornerstone of a much broader power imbalance, one that is codified throughout the governing documents.

2. A Power Imbalance Is Written into the Rules

While Ms. Morin argued for an equal standard of responsibility, the legal documents revealed a clear and intentional power imbalance. CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5, granted the HOA the “exclusive right to construe and interpret the provisions of the [CC&Rs],” and stated that its interpretation is “final, conclusive and binding.”

This structure legally transforms the relationship from a partnership of equals into one of administrator and subject, where one party holds the power of final interpretation. The governing documents describe in detail how the HOA can levy penalties against an owner for violations, but they provide no equivalent process for an owner to penalize the HOA for its failures. The judge in the rehearing decision explicitly summarized this built-in hierarchy:

“Thus, it is clear, that pursuant to the governing documents, the Board’s authority is lifted above that of a homeowner.”

With the Board’s authority so clearly established, Ms. Morin’s mountain of evidence was about to run into a contractual brick wall.

3. An “Enormity of Evidence” Isn’t Always the Right Evidence

Ms. Morin presented a significant volume of evidence, starting with over 80 photographs in the first hearing and later referencing what she called an “enormity” of evidence totaling over 300 pictures of weeds, damaged sidewalks, and other maintenance issues.

The critical legal distinction the judge made was that the photographs documented the condition of the common areas, but they did not prove a violation of the governing documents. The legal question was not, “Are there weeds?” The question was, “Did the Board violate a contract that explicitly makes it the sole judge of maintenance?” This demonstrates that in a contract dispute, the quality of evidence is defined by its relevance to the specific contractual terms, not its sheer volume.

4. “At All Times” Doesn’t Mean “Instantly”

A key part of the homeowner’s argument was that the HOA was failing to “maintain in good condition and repair at all times” by allowing maintenance issues to persist for months. In response, the HOA detailed its operational reality. The HOA provided evidence of long-term capital plans, such as sealing street cracks every two years and major sidewalk repairs on a four-year cycle. Daily tasks, like weed control, were handled by landscape crews operating on a continuous, rotating schedule across the large community.

From a legal perspective, “at all times” is interpreted through the lens of operational reasonableness for a large entity, not as a guarantee of immediate perfection. For an organization managing a vast property, this standard is met through consistent processes and schedules, not by fixing every issue the moment it is reported.

5. Your Dissatisfaction Is Not a Lawsuit

At its heart, the case was driven by Ms. Morin’s deep frustration. The judge recognized that her petition stemmed from a core belief that the Board and its General Manager were unresponsive and providing poor oversight. While these feelings may have been valid, they were not legally actionable on their own. The judge’s decision in the rehearing drew a firm line between a homeowner’s frustration and a legal claim:

“However, a homeowner’s dissatisfaction with management is not within the purview of this process or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”

This highlights a common misconception: while feelings of poor customer service are valid, they are legally irrelevant unless they can be tied to a specific, provable breach of the governing documents or a violation of state law.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Read Before You Sign

The primary lesson from this case is the absolute authority of a community’s governing documents. In any dispute, the specific, written words of the CC&Rs—the contract you sign when you buy your home—will almost always outweigh a homeowner’s subjective standards, sense of fairness, or even a mountain of photographic evidence.

This case serves as a powerful reminder that from a contractual standpoint, the rules are not always designed to be “fair,” but to be enforceable. It leaves every homeowner with a critical question:

Before you complain about your HOA, have you read the rulebook they’re playing by—and that you agreed to?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Debra K. Morin (petitioner)
    Self-represented

Respondent Side

  • Lydia A. Perce Linsmeier (respondent attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
  • Denise Frazier (general manager/witness)
    Premier Management Company
    On-site general manager for Solera, employed by Premier Management Company

Neutral Parties

  • Kay Abramsohn (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
    Transmitted original decision

John D Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-12-17
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John D Klemmer Counsel —
Respondent Caribbean Gardens Association Counsel Nicole D. Payne, Esq., Lydia A. Pierce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5 and 1.8; Article 3, Section 3.4; Article 4, Section 4.1; Article 8, Section 8.1; and, Article 12, Section 12.4

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent Association violated the cited CC&R provisions by refusing to manage the disputed area, which the ALJ determined was a limited common element.

Why this result: The Petitioner lost because the area in dispute was determined to be a 'limited common element' (a balcony serving Unit 207) under Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)), not a 'common area' the Association was required to manage under the referenced CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to manage, operate, maintain and administer common area

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated multiple CC&Rs by refusing to maintain an area between Unit 206 and Unit 207, which he claimed was a common area. The HOA argued the area was a limited common element. The ALJ concluded, relying on A.R.S. § 33-1212(A), that the disputed area was a limited common element (a balcony) allocated exclusively to Unit 207, thus Petitioner failed to establish a CC&R violation.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Petitioner bears his $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.5
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.6
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, common elements, limited common elements, balcony dispute, CC&R violation, A.R.S. 33-1212
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212
  • A.R.S. § 33-1218
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5, 1.8
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

John D Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-12-17
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John D Klemmer Counsel —
Respondent Caribbean Gardens Association Counsel Nicole D. Payne, Esq., Lydia A. Pierce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5 and 1.8; Article 3, Section 3.4; Article 4, Section 4.1; Article 8, Section 8.1; and, Article 12, Section 12.4

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent Association violated the cited CC&R provisions by refusing to manage the disputed area, which the ALJ determined was a limited common element.

Why this result: The Petitioner lost because the area in dispute was determined to be a 'limited common element' (a balcony serving Unit 207) under Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)), not a 'common area' the Association was required to manage under the referenced CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to manage, operate, maintain and administer common area

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated multiple CC&Rs by refusing to maintain an area between Unit 206 and Unit 207, which he claimed was a common area. The HOA argued the area was a limited common element. The ALJ concluded, relying on A.R.S. § 33-1212(A), that the disputed area was a limited common element (a balcony) allocated exclusively to Unit 207, thus Petitioner failed to establish a CC&R violation.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Petitioner bears his $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.5
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.6
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, common elements, limited common elements, balcony dispute, CC&R violation, A.R.S. 33-1212
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212
  • A.R.S. § 33-1218
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5, 1.8
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Decision Documents

21F-H2120009-REL-RHG Decision – 876384.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:28:50 (124.8 KB)