Category Archives: HOA Cases

Justin R. Sheakley v. Arizona Hillcrest Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-10-21
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Justin R. Sheakley Counsel —
Respondent Arizona Hillcrest Community Association Counsel Quinten Cupps

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.2

Outcome Summary

Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing Respondent violated its Community Documents concerning the determination of structural damage required for shared cost repair under CC&R 11.2.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board was unreasonable when determining the wall at issue was structurally damaged.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute regarding cost sharing for common wall repair (structural damage determination)

Petitioner claimed the wall only required cosmetic repair (HOA responsibility per CC&R 11.2) rather than structural replacement (shared cost). The HOA relied on contractor assessment indicating structural damage. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated the CC&Rs or acted unreasonably in ordering the repair.

Orders: Respondent deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Structural Damage, HOA Maintenance, Cost Sharing, HOA Discretion
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.2
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Decision Documents

24F-H056-REL Decision – 1211424.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:32 (55.5 KB)

24F-H056-REL Decision – 1235391.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:32 (125.4 KB)

Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H054-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-20
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lisa Marx Counsel —
Respondent Tara Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1248 (A), (D), (E), and (F); and Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on the 'Records' issue (A.R.S. § 33-1258), resulting in a $500.00 filing fee reimbursement. Respondent prevailed on the 'Example 13' issue (A.R.S. § 33-1248 and CC&Rs § 9(E)).

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain her burden regarding the Open Meeting Law allegations, finding that TARA conducted meetings in compliance and the specific volunteer work referenced was not statutorily or contractually required to be placed on an agenda for formal action.

Key Issues & Findings

Records Access Violation

TARA failed to timely provide access to TARA HOA records it possessed, violating the ten business day fulfillment requirement for examination requests.

Orders: TARA was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Open Meeting Law Violation (Example 13)

Petitioner alleged open meeting violations concerning volunteer work and projects not placed on agendas or formally voted upon by the board (Example 13).

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed as to alleged violations of A.R.S. § 33-1248(A), (D), (E), and (F) and/or Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)
  • Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records, Open Meeting Law, Partial Victory, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Decision Documents

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1212274.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:27 (70.4 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1212281.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:28 (12.4 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1216809.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:28 (50.9 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1225818.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:28 (168.1 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1226250.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:28 (41.9 KB)

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel, Rick Jr. &

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom
Respondent Rick Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article V, Section 5.22; Guidelines Section 2.24

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the HOA's petition, finding the HOA failed to meet its burden of proving a violation. The homeowner justifiably relied on the ARC's approval, which was granted rapidly and without clarification requests, despite the lack of detail on the wall height, effectively granting an exception to the Guidelines.

Why this result: The HOA (Petitioner) failed to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the plans after multiple rounds of review, and the homeowner relied on that approval. The delay in the stop construction notice was also deemed unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Construction of unapproved structures/patio walls in excess of permitted height

Petitioner (HOA) alleged Respondent (homeowner) violated community documents by constructing walls around a courtyard in excess of the 42-inch height limit set by the Guidelines Section 2.24, and without sufficient prior approval (CC&R Section 5.22). The constructed wall was approximately 8 feet high.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Review, Wall Height, Pony Wall, Approval Reliance, Burden of Proof, Unreasonable Delay
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article V, Section 5.22
  • Guidelines Section 2.24

Decision Documents

24F-H050-REL Decision – 1222437.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:24 (132.2 KB)

Taylor Kidd vs Heritage Village III Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-23
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer Counsel Patrick T. Nackley
Respondent Heritage Village III Homeowners Association Counsel Tessa Knueppel and Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4 and Heritage Village III HO CC&R Article VII, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Association violated its own CC&Rs (Article VII, Section 1) by failing to incorporate and follow Article III, Section 4 of the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs, which required a two-thirds vote of voting owners for a special assessment for capital improvements. Both petitions were granted, and the Association was ordered to refund the total filing fees of $1,000.00.

Why this result: Respondent failed to take the required vote regarding the special assessment for the Landscape Improvement Project, in violation of the controlling CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs by approving a Landscape Improvement Project and potential special assessment for a capital improvement without the required 2/3 membership vote.

The Association violated its CC&Rs by failing to follow the McCormick Ranch CC&R provision requiring the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by Voting Owners for a Special Assessment intended for construction, reconstruction, repair, or replacement of a capital improvement (the Landscape Improvement Project).

Orders: The petitions were granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse both Petitioners' filing fees pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4
  • Association CC&R Article VII, Section 1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Special Assessment, Capital Improvement, Membership Vote, CC&R Violation, Consolidation, Master Association
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.7
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

Decision Documents

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182719.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (62.8 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182767.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (13.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182769.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (50.0 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1203525.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (49.3 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1215299.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (123.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1226570.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (39.7 KB)

Deborah Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deborah Masear Counsel —
Respondent Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association Counsel Erica L. Mortenson

Alleged Violations

Park By-Laws Article III, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA (Park) was in compliance with its By-Laws. Frank Maiz was found to be the spouse of the unit owner (Mercedes B.B. Maiz), making him eligible to serve on the Board of Directors.

Why this result: Petitioner was mistaken regarding the current ownership of the unit at issue and failed to prove the respondent violated the Park By-Laws.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors Qualification (Owner/Spouse Requirement)

Petitioner alleged that Frank Maiz was ineligible for the Board because his wife, Mercedes B.B. Maiz, was not the true owner of the unit, arguing that their daughter (also Mercedes B.B. Maiz) was the owner based on a recorded Beneficiary Deed. The Respondent proved that the wife owned the property, making Frank Maiz eligible as her spouse.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Park is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner shall bear her filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Decision Documents

24F-H041-REL Decision – 1178740.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:00 (54.4 KB)

24F-H041-REL Decision – 1202883.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:00 (42.7 KB)

24F-H041-REL Decision – 1211324.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:00 (120.7 KB)

Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H035-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jesse Freeman Counsel —
Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article II, Section 8, as amended October 18, 2000

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the validity or implementation of the purported Bylaws amendment, and the language of the amendment itself was found not to be compulsory in requiring a subsequent meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to hold a second and subsequent meeting of the membership with a diminished quorum.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to hold a second meeting with a diminished 15% quorum after failing to meet the initial 25% quorum at the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, despite a motion and second being made to adjourn and reset the meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Annual Meeting, Burden of Proof, Invalid Document, Continuance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Decision Documents

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:45 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:45 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:45 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:46 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:46 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:46 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:46 (146.3 KB)

Brian & Rosalie Gordon v. Tucson Estate No. Two Owner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-07-10
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Gordon and Rosalie Gordon Counsel —
Respondent Tucson Estate No. Two Owner's Association Counsel Jason Smith

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article 10; Finance Committee rules
A.R.S. § 33-1805; Bylaws Article 10
A.R.S. § 33-1805; Bylaws Article 10
A.R.S. § 33-1805; Bylaws Article 10

Outcome Summary

Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party regarding Petition Issues 1 and 4, and Respondent was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issues 2 and 3. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners $1,000.00 of the filing fee. Respondent was also directed to comply with Community Documents and A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward. No Civil Penalty was levied.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof for Complaints 2 and 3, establishing that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 or failed to abide by Community Documents, because Respondent provided all available records or offered additional reports.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Community Documents by not recording and making available the minutes of all Finance Committee Meetings held in 2023.

Petitioners requested minutes for five 2023 Finance Committee Meetings. The Committee rules required minutes of its meetings as a permanent record of its actions. The Respondent failed to record meeting minutes as required.

Orders: Respondent directed to comply with the requirements of its Community Documents going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Violation by not keeping and making financial and other HOA business documentation (Budget Working Papers) available for review.

Petitioners requested copies of Budget Working Papers. Respondent provided all available documents (unapproved budget, general ledger, and draft), maintaining only one version of a proprietary spreadsheet. Petitioners failed to meet their burden to prove Respondent did not make records available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Violation by not keeping and making financial and other HOA business documentation (Accounts Payable journal with GL detail) available for review.

Petitioners requested Accounts Payable journal/reports multiple times. Respondent provided copies of available accounts payable reports (check receipts and general ledger). When Respondent later identified an additional detailed report available for purchase, Petitioners refused it.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Violation by not keeping and making financial and other HOA business documentation (IRS Tax filings and backup documentation) available for review.

Petitioners requested IRS Tax filings. Respondent initially provided only photocopies of two pages of the 1120-h form, missing schedules and backup documentation. Respondent failed to provide full tax returns or backup documentation in a timely manner (within ten business days).

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records dispute, Finance Committee minutes, budget working papers, accounts payable journal, IRS tax filings, record retention, A.R.S. § 33-1805 violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Decision Documents

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1176916.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:02 (53.5 KB)

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1198119.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:02 (203.0 KB)

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1200350.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:02 (37.2 KB)

Aaron Solen & Anh Jung v. Power Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-07-05
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Aaron Solen and Anh Jung Counsel —
Respondent Power Ranch Community Association Counsel Charles H. Oldham

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §33-1803(B) and Article 5.2.4 of the Association’s by-laws

Outcome Summary

The tribunal granted the petition, finding the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B) and CC&R section 5.2.3 by failing to provide Petitioners an opportunity to be heard before imposing monetary penalties. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the tribunal denied all other requests for relief, including the reimbursement of fines, imposition of civil penalties, and forced approval of the modification, citing lack of statutory authority.

Why this result: The tribunal lacks statutory authority to erase fines imposed, force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s, or force the Association to accept the planters without Petitioners going through the proper Design Review Committee processes.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner was issued fines as a result of a Design Review Committee decision and petitioner was not provided an opportunity to appeal to or be heard by the board of directors as required by A.R.S. §33-1803(B) and Article 5, specifically Article 5.2.4 of the Association’s by-laws.

Petitioners were fined for an unapproved modification (planter) without being granted a proper opportunity to be heard by the Board, as required by statute and bylaws, leading to a violation finding against the Association. The May 2023 meeting did not include the hearing, and the June 2023 Executive Session was not deemed a proper 'hearing' due to confusion over the closed session terminology.

Orders: The petition alleging violation of hearing rights was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A). Requests for reimbursement of fines incurred ($400.00), approval of the planters, imposition of a civil penalty, and rewriting CC&R’s procedures were denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
  • Article 5.2.4
  • CC&R Section 5.2.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: DRC denial, hearing rights, monetary penalty, unapproved modification, executive session, CC&R violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
  • Article 5.2.4
  • CC&R Section 5.2.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Decision Documents

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:49 (42.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:50 (40.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:50 (37.4 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:50 (146.0 KB)

Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-06-26
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kenneth M. Halal Counsel —
Respondent Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Alexandra M. Kurtyka

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1804; Bylaws Article 2.3, 5.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's request was dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the restriction of access to the Townsquare forum was a unilateral decision made by Townsquare, a separate legal entity. The cited statutes and Bylaws regarding due process for violations of Project Documents were found inapplicable because Townsquare and its Terms of Use are not governed by the HOA’s Project Documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the cited statutes and bylaw provisions were found inapplicable since the Townsquare platform is not owned or managed by the HOA, and the restriction was imposed solely by Townsquare based on its Terms of Use, which are not HOA Project Documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Due process violation regarding removal from HOA website forum (Townsquare Forum)

Petitioner alleged violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 33-1804, and Bylaws 2.3 and 5.2, arguing the HOA failed to provide due process when restricting his access to the Townsquare online forum. The ALJ found the cited provisions inapplicable as the restriction was imposed solely by Townsquare, a third-party entity whose Terms of Use are not Project Documents.

Orders: Petition dismissed because Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the cited statutes or Bylaws.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Bylaws Article 2.3
  • Bylaws Section 5.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Due Process, Online Forum, Townsquare, Third-Party Vendor, Project Documents
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • Bylaws Article 2.3
  • Bylaws Section 5.2
  • CC&Rs Article 1 Section 1.36
  • Townsquare Terms of Use

Decision Documents

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1183806.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:07 (61.3 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1186944.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:07 (45.9 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1193702.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:08 (171.0 KB)

Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H024-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-05-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox Counsel Ross Meyer, Esq.
Respondent Casa Del Monte, Inc. Counsel Solomon Krotzer, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to meet their burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248 regarding the May 19, 2023, Executive Board Meeting.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as the Executive Session was deemed appropriate for receiving legal advice or conducting discussion related thereto, which falls under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of open meeting law concerning Executive Board Meeting on May 19, 2023

Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1248 by improperly conducting business (Code of Conduct review and vote on minutes) in a closed Executive Session on May 19, 2023, and by failing to provide 48-hour notice.

Orders: Petitioners' petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Executive Session, Legal Advice Exception, Code of Conduct, Burden of Proof, Condominium Association Statute, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Decision Documents

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1138580.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:21 (54.3 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1144884.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:22 (50.1 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1146526.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:22 (61.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1161533.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:22 (48.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1179547.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:22 (132.9 KB)