The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.
The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.
Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).
Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
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. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:55 (149.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL
Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s failure to fully comply with a request for records under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.
The case is notable for its complete reversal upon rehearing. An initial ruling on April 10, 2019, favored the Association, finding that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request by not emailing all Board members. However, this decision was overturned in a final, binding order on September 12, 2019. In the rehearing, the Petitioner presented new evidence demonstrating he was following the Association’s own prior written instructions for submitting such requests.
The ALJ ultimately concluded that the Association did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary document instead of making the full records available for examination. Consequently, the final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, mandated the full reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied an additional $500 civil penalty against the Association. The case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the weight of documented instructions in governing interactions between homeowners and their associations.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.
◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).
• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.
• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.
• Case Numbers:
◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)
◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)
II. Chronology of the Dispute
Jul. 19, 2017
Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.
Jul. 18, 2018
Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.
Nov. 1, 2018
Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.
Nov. 2, 2018
Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.
Nov. 18, 2018
Mr. Schoeffler responds on behalf of the Association, providing a summary table of EDC actions but not the full records. He also advises the Petitioner that all Board members must be copied on future requests.
Dec. 17, 2018
Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.
Mar. 6, 2019
Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.
Mar. 11, 2019
Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.
Mar. 17, 2019
Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”
Mar. 21, 2019
The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.
Apr. 10, 2019
The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.
Jun. 10, 2019
Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.
Aug. 27, 2019
A rehearing is held at the OAH.
Sep. 12, 2019
The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.
III. The Records Request and Response
Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)
The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:
“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”
Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)
The Association did not provide the requested documents (e.g., letters, emails, applications). Instead, it provided a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions.” As of the August 27, 2019, rehearing, the Petitioner had still not received the full documentation he originally requested.
Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)
In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Petitioner sent a detailed follow-up email outlining the specific missing records by referencing the line items in the Association’s own summary table. This demonstrated that his request was not for a vague “list of actions” but for the underlying correspondence. This included requests for:
• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.
• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.
• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.
• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.
IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings
The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.
A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)
• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.
• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that because the request was improperly submitted, the Association was not obligated to fulfill it under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Therefore, its failure to provide the full records did not constitute a violation. The decision noted, “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation…”
• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.
B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)
• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.
• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:
1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.
2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).
• Reasoning: The ALJ found this evidence dispositive, stating, “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.” With the submission deemed proper, the focus shifted to the response. The ALJ concluded that providing a summary table was not compliant with the statute’s requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”
• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.
V. Key Arguments and Testimonies
• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):
◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.
◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.
◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.
• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):
◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.
◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.
◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”
◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.
VI. Final Order and Penalties
The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:
1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.
2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918037-REL
Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case between petitioner Tom Barrs and respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, covering the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?
2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute was the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association accused of violating, and what does this statute generally require?
3. What was the exact nature of the records request Tom Barrs submitted on November 1, 2018?
4. In the initial hearing, what was the key reason the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association?
5. What was the Association’s initial response to Barrs’ records request, and why did Barrs consider it incomplete?
6. Upon what grounds was a rehearing of the case granted?
7. What crucial new evidence presented at the rehearing changed the outcome of the case?
8. How did the Association’s own bylaws and concessions during the rehearing weaken its defense?
9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision after the rehearing?
10. What financial penalties were imposed on the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association in the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Tom Barrs, the Petitioner, and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Barrs, a homeowner and member of the Association, filed a petition alleging the Association failed to comply with a records request. The Association, represented in the hearings by Brian Schoeffler, defended its actions against this claim.
2. The Association was accused of violating A.R.S. § 33-1805. This statute requires a homeowners’ association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request. It also allows the association to charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.
3. On November 1, 2018, Tom Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.” He specified that electronic copies were preferable but that he was also willing to pick up hard copies.
4. In the initial hearing, the judge ruled for the Association because the evidence indicated Barrs had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error meant Barrs failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of the statute.
5. The Association responded on November 18, 2018, by providing Barrs with a summary table of Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions. Barrs considered this incomplete because his request was for the underlying communications, including all written requests and approvals, not just a summary list of actions.
6. A rehearing was granted after Petitioner Tom Barrs submitted an appeal to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on June 10, 2019. The Department granted the appeal and referred the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a new evidentiary hearing.
7. The crucial new evidence showed that the Association’s President had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as Barrs’ primary contact for records requests. This evidence demonstrated that Barrs had, in fact, followed the specific instructions given to him and was not required to send his request to all board members, directly contradicting the basis for the initial ruling.
8. The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require members to copy all Board members on records requests. It also admitted that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for such requests were not adhered to or enforced, which undermined its argument that Barrs had failed to follow proper procedure.
9. The final ruling, issued September 12, 2019, granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association’s conduct violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 because it did not fully comply with Barrs’ specific and properly submitted request.
10. The Association was ordered to reimburse Petitioner Tom Barrs’ $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Association, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-format answers that require critical thinking and synthesis of information from the case documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Compare and contrast the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the initial decision (April 10, 2019) with those in the rehearing decision (September 12, 2019). Analyze how specific factual clarifications led to a complete reversal of the legal conclusion.
2. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decisions. Detail why the petitioner initially failed to meet this burden and what specific evidence allowed him to successfully meet it in the rehearing.
3. Analyze the testimony and arguments presented by Brian Schoeffler on behalf of the Association across both hearings. Discuss the consistency of his defense, his reasoning based on prior OAH decisions, and his stated fear that providing more documents could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt.”
4. Trace the complete procedural timeline of case No. 19F-H1918037-REL, from the filing of the initial petition on December 17, 2018, to the final, binding order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
5. Using the details of this case, write an analysis of the function and importance of A.R.S. § 33-1805 in regulating the relationship between a homeowner and a homeowners’ association. Discuss the statute’s requirements for both parties and the consequences of non-compliance.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies like the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs a homeowner’s right to access the records of a homeowners’ association. It mandates that an association must make records available for examination within ten business days of a request.
Associated Asset Management (AAM)
The management company that served as the accounting firm for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. Petitioner was instructed at one point to direct requests to Lori Lock-Lee at AAM.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The governing body that oversees the operations of the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Desert Ranch HOA is governed by its CC&Rs.
Environmental Design Committee (EDC)
A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association responsible for reviewing and approving architectural and landscaping changes. Brian Schoeffler was the Chairman of the EDC.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Tom Barrs is the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case, granted upon appeal, to re-examine the issues and evidence. The rehearing in this case took place on August 27, 2019, and resulted in the reversal of the initial decision.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association is the Respondent.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing a neutral forum for resolving disputes like the one between Barrs and the Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918037-REL
Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s failure to fully comply with a request for records under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.
The case is notable for its complete reversal upon rehearing. An initial ruling on April 10, 2019, favored the Association, finding that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request by not emailing all Board members. However, this decision was overturned in a final, binding order on September 12, 2019. In the rehearing, the Petitioner presented new evidence demonstrating he was following the Association’s own prior written instructions for submitting such requests.
The ALJ ultimately concluded that the Association did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary document instead of making the full records available for examination. Consequently, the final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, mandated the full reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied an additional $500 civil penalty against the Association. The case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the weight of documented instructions in governing interactions between homeowners and their associations.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.
◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).
• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.
• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.
• Case Numbers:
◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)
◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)
II. Chronology of the Dispute
Jul. 19, 2017
Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.
Jul. 18, 2018
Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.
Nov. 1, 2018
Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.
Nov. 2, 2018
Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.
Nov. 18, 2018
Mr. Schoeffler responds on behalf of the Association, providing a summary table of EDC actions but not the full records. He also advises the Petitioner that all Board members must be copied on future requests.
Dec. 17, 2018
Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.
Mar. 6, 2019
Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.
Mar. 11, 2019
Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.
Mar. 17, 2019
Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”
Mar. 21, 2019
The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.
Apr. 10, 2019
The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.
Jun. 10, 2019
Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.
Aug. 27, 2019
A rehearing is held at the OAH.
Sep. 12, 2019
The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.
III. The Records Request and Response
Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)
The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:
“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”
Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)
The Association did not provide the requested documents (e.g., letters, emails, applications). Instead, it provided a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions.” As of the August 27, 2019, rehearing, the Petitioner had still not received the full documentation he originally requested.
Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)
In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Petitioner sent a detailed follow-up email outlining the specific missing records by referencing the line items in the Association’s own summary table. This demonstrated that his request was not for a vague “list of actions” but for the underlying correspondence. This included requests for:
• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.
• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.
• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.
• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.
IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings
The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.
A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)
• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.
• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that because the request was improperly submitted, the Association was not obligated to fulfill it under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Therefore, its failure to provide the full records did not constitute a violation. The decision noted, “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation…”
• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.
B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)
• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.
• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:
1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.
2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).
• Reasoning: The ALJ found this evidence dispositive, stating, “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.” With the submission deemed proper, the focus shifted to the response. The ALJ concluded that providing a summary table was not compliant with the statute’s requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”
• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.
V. Key Arguments and Testimonies
• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):
◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.
◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.
◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.
• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):
◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.
◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.
◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”
◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.
VI. Final Order and Penalties
The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:
1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.
2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf in the initial hearing; appeared as a witness in the rehearing.
Jonathan Dessaules(petitioner attorney) Dessaules Law Group Appeared on behalf of Petitioner in the rehearing.
Respondent Side
Brian Schoeffler(respondent representative / EDC chairman / witness) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Also identified as a Board Director.
Catherine Overby(HOA president / board member) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Appointed Mr. Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
Lori Loch-Lee(property manager) Associated Asset Management (AAM) Vice President of Client Services.
Amanda Shaw(property manager) AAM LLC Contact for Respondent.
B. Austin Baillio(HOA attorney) Maxwell & Morgan, P.C. Received electronic transmission of the rehearing decision.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) ADRE
Dan Gardner(ADRE staff) ADRE HOA Coordinator.
Other Participants
Gerard Manieri(observer) Listed as 'G. Mangiero' in initial hearing source.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.
The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.
Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).
Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
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. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:08:27 (149.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL
Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The central issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to adequately fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.
The initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in an April 10, 2019, decision in favor of the Association. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and thus the Association’s partial response (a summary table) did not constitute a statutory violation.
Following a successful appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner had followed prior express instructions from the Association regarding who to contact for records requests. Consequently, the ALJ issued a new decision on September 12, 2019, reversing the original order. The final ruling found the Association in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and was assessed a civil penalty of $500.
Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request for Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, requests, and approvals.
Initial Petition
Filed by Tom Barrs on December 17, 2018.
Initial Hearing
March 21, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.
Rehearing
August 27, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.
Final Outcome
Petition granted in favor of Tom Barrs. The Association was found in violation of state law, ordered to reimburse the filing fee, and fined.
Key Individuals and Entities
Role / Affiliation
Tom Barrs
Petitioner; homeowner in the Desert Ranch subdivision.
Desert Ranch HOA
Respondent; homeowners’ association.
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
Brian Schoeffler
Chairman of the Association’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC); appeared on behalf of the Association.
Catherine Overby
President of the Association’s Board of Directors.
Lori Loch-Lee
Vice President of Client Services at Associated Asset Management (AAM), the Association’s accounting/management company.
Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.
Attorney who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner at the rehearing.
The Records Request and Subsequent Dispute
The Initial Request
On November 1, 2018, at 9:40 p.m., Petitioner submitted an electronic records request to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee. The text of the request was as follows:
“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”
The Association’s Response and Petitioner’s Follow-Up
• November 2, 2018: Lori Loch-Lee from AAM notified the Petitioner she would forward his request to all Board members, noting that AAM was only the Association’s accounting firm.
• November 18, 2018: The Petitioner received a summary table listing some EDC actions, not the complete set of communications and documents requested. At this time, he was advised by Brian Schoeffler that he “needed to copy all Board members on records requests.”
• March 6, 2019: The Petitioner sent a follow-up email, accusing the Association of willful failure and clarifying the specific records he sought beyond the summary table, including “copies of the communications (letters, emails, and application forms) relating to Environmental Design Review (EDC) submissions, requests, complaints and approvals (or denials).”
• March 11, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler replied, arguing that the request had been complied with on November 18, 2018, and directed the Petitioner to “submit a new request” for the additional information.
• March 17, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler reiterated that the original request was only sent to two of four Board members and stated that providing additional documents could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”
As of the rehearing date (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.
Legal Proceedings and Rulings
Initial Hearing and Decision (April 10, 2019)
In the first hearing, the dispute centered on the validity of the request submission and the adequacy of the Association’s response.
Arguments:
• Petitioner (Barrs): Argued the Association acted in bad faith and willfully failed to fulfill the request, noting a similar dispute had been previously adjudicated. He was concerned with the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.
• Respondent (HOA): Argued it had complied with the request by providing a summary table, consistent with its handling of a previous dispute with the Petitioner. Mr. Schoeffler testified that the response was untimely (provided on the 11th business day) but asserted it was otherwise sufficient.
ALJ Conclusion: The Judge ruled in favor of the Association, denying the Petitioner’s petition. The key finding was that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request.
“Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”
The decision also noted that the statute does not legally obligate an HOA to email copies of records.
Rehearing and Final Decision (September 12, 2019)
After the Petitioner’s appeal was granted, a rehearing introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome.
New Evidence and Concessions:
• July 19, 2017 Instruction: Evidence showed Association President Catherine Overby had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s “primary records request contact.”
• July 18, 2018 Instruction: Evidence showed Ms. Overby had also instructed the Petitioner to direct requests to the management company, AAM.
• Association Concessions: The Respondent conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests and that its own bylaws regarding submission forms are not adhered to or enforced.
ALJ’s Reversed Conclusion: The Judge reversed the prior decision and granted the Petitioner’s petition. The new evidence proved the Petitioner had followed express instructions from the Association.
“Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
The Judge concluded that the partial response was a clear violation of the law.
“Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
Final Order and Penalties
The Administrative Law Judge’s Final Order on September 12, 2019, which is binding on the parties, mandated the following:
1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted.
2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent (Desert Ranch HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to notice at least one meeting which was improperly held in closed session. The Tribunal noted that while some executive sessions regarding pending litigation were permissible, meetings regarding vendor changes (management and landscaping) required open session and notice. The filing fee was refunded, but no civil penalty was assessed as the conduct was not found to be intentional or in bad faith.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide notice of meetings and acting on results of secret meetings
Petitioner alleged the Association violated open meeting laws by failing to provide notice of meetings held between November 2017 and May 2018, specifically regarding the hiring of new management and landscaping companies in executive session without community input or proper notice.
Orders: The Tribunal found the Respondent held at least one closed meeting that should have been open/noticed. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
6
7
48
49
50
Decision Documents
19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 693361.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:15:40 (45.6 KB)
19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 699583.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:15:40 (194.0 KB)
**Case Summary: James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association**
**Case No.** 19F-H1918014-REL
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona Department of Real Estate)
**Administrative Law Judge:** Jenna Clark
**Overview and Main Issues**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioner James Dutton, a homeowner and former Board President, and the Respondent, Cielo Noche Community Association. The central legal issue was whether the Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law)** by failing to provide notice of Board meetings and conducting business in secret executive sessions between November 2017 and May 2018,.
**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Dutton argued that the Board improperly utilized executive sessions to make significant financial and operational decisions without community input. Specifically, he presented evidence that the Board voted to replace the management company (Trestle with Tri-City) and the landscaping vendor (Peak) during closed sessions,,. Dutton noted that the new management contract cost the community 3% more than the previous one. He further alleged that the Board failed to read minutes from emergency meetings held in September and November 2018 at subsequent open meetings, as required by law,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association contended that the closed sessions were necessary and privileged. Witnesses testified that discussions regarding the management company involved "employee performance" and that other closed sessions concerned pending litigation and settlement negotiations with the developer, K. Hovnanian Homes (KHOV), regarding construction defects,,.
* **Testimony on Compliance:** Kari Moyer, the community manager from Tri-City, admitted that a July 2018 meeting was not noticed due to a miscommunication. She also testified that she subsequently had to inform the Board that they were not permitted to hold executive sessions for the reasons they had been using and instructed them to hold such discussions in open session moving forward.
**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) evaluated the evidence under **A.R.S. § 33-1804**. This statute mandates that all meetings of a planned community association be open to members, with limited exceptions for legal advice, pending litigation, and personnel matters,. The law also requires that minutes from emergency meetings be read and approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
The Tribunal found that while the Board claimed privilege regarding the developer negotiations, the Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent held at least one closed meeting that should have been open. Furthermore, the lack of proper notice for these meetings constituted a violation of the state's Open Meeting Law.
**Final Decision and Order**
* **Ruling:** The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, concluding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to properly notice meetings and holding discussions in closed sessions that required open deliberation,.
* **Financial Outcome:** The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00.
* **Civil Penalties:** The Tribunal declined to assess a civil penalty against the Association. The Judge determined that the record did not reflect that the Board’s conduct was intentional, negligent, or committed in bad faith.
**Date of Order:** April 05, 2019.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
James Dutton(petitioner) Cielo Noche subdivision Former Board President; property owner
Steven W. Cheifetz(attorney) Cheifetz Law, PLLC Counsel for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Nicholas C. Nogami(attorney) Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen PLC Counsel for Respondent
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA acted in accordance with its governing documents (CC&Rs § 4.1) by imposing uniform assessments. The CC&Rs did not provide an exception for reduced assessments based on an owner's choice of landscaping (rock yard) or refusal of HOA maintenance services.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, as CC&R § 4.1 requires uniform assessment and no provision requires or allows Respondent to assess Petitioner less due to his rock yard and refusal of maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA Assessment Uniformity Requirement
Petitioner, who had rock landscaping and refused HOA maintenance, alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by assessing him uniform dues, arguing he should pay less since HOA expenditures on lawn maintenance were substantial and primarily benefited neighbors with grass yards.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs § 4.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Assessment, Uniform Dues, CC&R Enforcement, Landscaping Maintenance
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918038-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core conflict centered on Mr. Stoltenberg’s claim that he should pay lower HOA assessments because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards requiring more costly maintenance by the HOA.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately denied the petition. The decision rested on an unambiguous interpretation of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Judge found that the CC&Rs explicitly obligate the HOA to maintain landscaping on all individual lots and, crucially, require assessments to be uniform for all members to cover these “common expenses.” The petitioner’s argument for a reduced assessment was unsupported by any provision in the governing documents. Furthermore, evidence showed that Mr. Stoltenberg had actively refused the HOA access to his property to install a community irrigation system and to perform the very landscaping maintenance that is a central component of the assessments.
Case Overview
• Case Number: 19F-H1918038-REL
• Parties Involved:
◦ Petitioner: Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Rancho Del Oro.
◦ Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA).
• Hearing Date: March 19, 2019
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge
• Core Allegation: On December 29, 2018, the Petitioner filed a petition alleging the HOA violated multiple sections of its CC&Rs (§§ 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 14.2) by levying the same assessment fees on his property as on neighboring properties with grass lawns.
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Michael Stoltenberg)
The Petitioner’s case was built on the argument of fairness, contending that his assessment should be lower because his property does not utilize the HOA’s most expensive landscaping services.
• Primary Argument: It is inequitable for the HOA to charge him the same amount as neighbors with grass yards, given that his front yard is rock and does not receive the same level of maintenance.
• Financial Evidence: The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the HOA spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which constituted 39% of its total budget.
• Refusal of Services: The Petitioner acknowledged that he refused to allow the HOA access to his property for two key purposes:
1. To install irrigation pipes connecting his lot to a new community well.
2. To perform any landscape maintenance on his front yard.
• Justification for Refusal: The Petitioner accused the HOA of previously killing his trees during maintenance activities and stated that he now undertakes all maintenance of his own yard.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Rancho Del Oro HOA)
The HOA’s defense was grounded in its adherence to the plain language of its governing documents, arguing that its actions were not only permissible but mandated by the CC&Rs.
• Primary Argument: The HOA is legally bound by its CC&Rs to levy uniform assessments on all members and is simultaneously obligated to maintain the landscaping on every individual lot.
• Key Testimony (Diana Crites, Property Manager):
◦ CC&R § 5.1(a) explicitly requires the HOA to maintain the yards of its members.
◦ CC&R § 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly, without regard to the type of landscaping they have chosen or whether they permit the HOA to perform its maintenance duties.
◦ The Petitioner’s property is one of eight constructed by a different developer, who did not originally install grass or an irrigation system.
◦ The HOA has since drilled a community well to address water costs and has offered to remove rock and install grass for these properties, an offer the Petitioner could accept.
• Supporting Evidence (Letter from Dawn Simpson, former bookkeeper):
◦ A 2013 HOA project was initiated to install a community well for landscaping and to connect all homes, including the Petitioner’s.
◦ The letter details an incident where the Petitioner “became very heated with [the] contractor” and “declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose.”
◦ This action directly halted all construction to connect his property to the irrigation system and ceased all landscaping services provided by the HOA.
Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)
The judge’s decision centered on the clear, unambiguous language of specific articles within the CC&Rs. The petitioner failed to identify any language that would permit or require a non-uniform assessment.
CC&R Section
Key Language
Implication & Ruling
Article IV, Section 4.1
Assessments “shall be used for the… common benefit… of the Owners” and “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”
This establishes the principle of uniform, shared liability for common expenses, regardless of an individual owner’s specific use of a particular service.
Article V, Section 5.1(a)
“The Association shall maintain… landscaping… It shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.”
This article imposes a direct obligation on the HOA to maintain all members’ landscaping, not merely an optional service.
Legal Conclusions and Final Order
• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg, held the burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA had violated its CC&Rs.
• Interpretation of Covenants: In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. The judge found the CC&Rs to be unambiguous, requiring a holistic interpretation. The documents clearly mandate that the HOA must maintain all yards and must assess all members equally to fund that maintenance.
• Final Ruling: The Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. He failed to point to any provision within the CC&Rs that “allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard.”
• Order: The petition was denied. The HOA’s practice of charging uniform assessments was upheld as compliant with its governing documents.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918038-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and conclusions presented in the Administrative Law Judge Decision for case number 19F-H1918038-REL, Michael Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Short-Answer Quiz Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this case, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the central allegation in the petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?
3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what was the financial basis for his claim of unfair assessment?
4. Describe the history of the water and irrigation system issue at the Petitioner’s property prior to 2013, as detailed in Dawn Simpson’s letter.
5. What action did the Petitioner take during the 2013 well construction project, and what were the consequences of this action?
6. According to Article V, Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs, what specific maintenance obligation does the homeowners’ association have regarding individual lots?
7. How did Diana Crites, the HOA’s property manager, justify the uniform assessment for all homeowners based on the CC&Rs?
8. What reason did Ms. Crites provide for why eight units, including the Petitioner’s, were originally landscaped with rock instead of grass?
9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this hearing, and on which party does the burden of proof rest?
10. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core legal reasoning for this decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” Mr. Stoltenberg is a homeowner and member of the HOA who filed a complaint against the association. The Respondent is the governing HOA for the Rancho Del Oro community in Yuma, Arizona.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated multiple sections of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). His central claim was that it was unfair for the HOA to charge him the same assessment fees as his neighbors because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards that require more maintenance.
3. The financial basis for his claim was the HOA’s budget. The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the Respondent spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which accounted for 39% of the total budget.
4. Prior to 2013, the Petitioner made several complaints that his home was not connected to the community water system. The HOA Board’s position was that the Petitioner knew his home was not connected to the system when he purchased it.
5. During the 2013 construction to install a well and connect all homes to an irrigation system, the Petitioner became “very heated” with the contractor. He declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose, which halted all construction in his backyard and all landscaping provided by the HOA for his front yard.
6. Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping even on privately owned lots.
7. Diana Crites testified that CC&R Section 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly. She stated this uniformity applies regardless of the type of landscaping an owner has chosen or whether they permit the HOA onto their property to perform maintenance.
8. Ms. Crites testified that the eight units were built by a different developer after the original construction and were not equipped with an irrigation system or grass. She believed rock was used in the front yards of these lots due to the high cost of water, an issue later resolved by the installation of a community well.
9. The legal standard is “a preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must be convincing enough to make the contention more probably true than not. The burden of proof to establish a CC&R violation rests on the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg.
10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was that the Petitioner failed to bear his burden of proof because he could not point to any provision in the CC&Rs that allows or requires the HOA to assess him less than his neighbors based on his landscaping choice or his refusal to allow maintenance.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a detailed response for each, citing specific evidence and CC&R provisions from the case document.
1. Analyze the central conflict between the Petitioner’s concept of fairness and the Respondent’s interpretation of the CC&Rs. Use specific clauses from the CC&Rs (e.g., Articles IV and V) to support the analysis of each party’s position.
2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. How did the evidence presented by both the Petitioner (e.g., budget figures) and the Respondent (e.g., witness testimony and CC&Rs) contribute to the judge’s final decision regarding this standard?
3. Trace the history of the water and irrigation issue at the Petitioner’s property, from his initial complaints to his refusal to allow construction access. How did these past events impact the central issue of the 2019 hearing?
4. Explain the legal principle that “restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole.” How did the Administrative Law Judge apply this principle by referencing both Section 4.1 (Assessments) and Section 5.1(a) (Maintenance) of the CC&Rs to reach her conclusion?
5. Evaluate the actions of the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg. Based on the evidence presented, did his own actions—specifically, denying the HOA access to his property—undermine his legal argument for a reduced assessment? Explain your reasoning using facts from the hearing evidence.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary
Definition from Source Context
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official (Diane Mihalsky) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, and makes decisions in matters referred by state departments like the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Assessments
Charges levied by the homeowners’ association on its members. According to CC&R § 4.1, they are used for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of owners, including property maintenance, and are to be proportioned to each owner’s respective common interests.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal case to establish their claim. In this matter, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
Common Area
Defined in CC&R § 1.8 as “those portions of the Project to which title is held by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners and excepting the individual units.”
Common Expenses
Defined in CC&R § 1.9 as the “actual and estimated expenses of operating the association,” including any reasonable reserves and all sums designated as Common Expense by project documents.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for a planned community that outline the rules, obligations, and rights of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.
Easements
A right of use over the property of another. CC&R § 2.1 grants every owner a “non-exclusive easement and equitable right of use and enjoyment in, to, and throughout the Common Area.”
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The governing body for a planned community (Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association) whose members are the property owners within that community. It is responsible for managing common areas and enforcing the CC&Rs.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Rancho Del Oro.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required to win the case. The source defines it as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or community document that limits the use of the property. The source notes that in Arizona, an unambiguous restrictive covenant is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties and must be construed as a whole.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918038-REL
He Sued His HOA Over an ‘Unfair’ Fee—The Reason He Lost Is a Warning for Every Homeowner
Introduction: The HOA Fee Frustration
For many homeowners, the monthly or annual bill from the Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of constant frustration. It’s easy to look at the line items—landscaping, pool maintenance, common area repairs—and wonder if you’re truly getting your money’s worth, especially when you feel you aren’t using a particular service.
This was exactly the position of Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Arizona who believed he had an open-and-shut case to lower his HOA fees. His argument seemed logical, fair, and simple. But the ultimate ruling in his case, Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, reveals some surprising and crucial truths about how HOA rules actually work and serves as a powerful lesson for every person living in a planned community.
Takeaway 1: You Pay for the Service, Even If You Actively Refuse It
Michael Stoltenberg’s argument was straightforward: his front yard was landscaped with rocks, while his neighbors had grass. He pointed out that in 2016, lawn maintenance accounted for a significant 39% of the HOA’s total budget. He argued it was fundamentally unfair for him to pay the same assessment as his neighbors when he wasn’t consuming this costly service.
His sense of unfairness was rooted in the history of the development. His home was one of eight built by a different developer than the rest of the community. Likely due to high water costs at the time, these eight lots were constructed without irrigation systems or grass. From the very beginning, his property was different. This context makes the crucial twist in the case all the more telling. In 2013, the HOA undertook a community-wide project to drill a new well and install an irrigation system, an effort designed to rectify the inconsistency and bring these outlier properties up to the community standard. When the construction reached Stoltenberg’s property, he refused the workers access.
Testimony from the HOA’s former bookkeeper laid this fact bare:
At this time, [Petitioner] declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose. This was also to include his front yard. This halted all construction that was currently in place in his back yard, and all landscaping being provided by the HOA for the front yard.
Legally, this transformed the situation. Stoltenberg’s complaint was no longer about a service he didn’t need, but about a service he actively rejected. This case establishes a critical principle: HOA assessments are tied to your property ownership and membership in the community, not your individual consumption of services. By refusing the service, Mr. Stoltenberg did not absolve himself of the cost associated with its availability to the community.
Takeaway 2: “Common Benefit” Isn’t the Same as “Your Personal Benefit”
The legal foundation for the HOA’s position rested in the language of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Section 4.1 states that assessments are to be used for the “common benefit, and enjoyment of the Owners.”
In an HOA context, “common benefit” is a broad concept. It means that well-maintained landscaping throughout the entire neighborhood enhances curb appeal, creates a cohesive community aesthetic, and supports the property values of all residents. This includes Mr. Stoltenberg, whose home value is supported by the beautiful, uniform appearance of the neighborhood, regardless of whether his specific yard has grass. It’s the same reason a homeowner without children still pays for the upkeep of a community playground; the amenity benefits the community as a whole.
Further testimony reinforced this point. The HOA’s property manager stated that the association was still willing to remove the rock and install grass on his property, just as they had already done for two other homeowners in a similar situation. The benefit was available to him; he simply continued to refuse it.
Takeaway 3: The Rules Are a Package Deal, Not an A La Carte Menu
Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge’s role was not to rule on a general sense of fairness but to enforce the community’s governing documents as written. When examined together, two key clauses in the CC&Rs created a contractual vise, leaving the judge with no other legal option. The two clauses created a perfect, inescapable loop.
• Section 5.1(a): This clause states the HOA has an obligation that “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” The HOA wasn’t just permitted to do the work; it was contractually required to.
• Section 4.1: This clause, which also defines assessments as being for the “common benefit,” requires that they “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”
The documents legally obligated the HOA to maintain all yards and to charge every owner the same proportional amount for doing so. The CC&Rs provided no mechanism for a homeowner to opt-out of a service and receive a corresponding discount. The judge’s final ruling was decisive, emphasizing the absolute nature of this contractual obligation:
Because Petitioner has not pointed to any CC&R that allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard, Petitioner has not borne his burden in this matter.
Conclusion: The Contract You Live In
The case of Michael Stoltenberg is a powerful reminder that an HOA’s CC&Rs are not just a set of neighborhood rules; they are restrictive covenants that run with the land. When you buy the property, you are irrevocably buying into the contract that governs it. These documents are designed to prioritize the uniform application of standards for the collective good, and they supersede an individual’s personal preferences or interpretation of what seems “fair.”
This case forces every potential buyer to ask a critical question: Are you simply purchasing a dwelling, or are you prepared to become a party to the binding legal contract that governs the entire community?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael Stoltenberg(Petitioner)
Respondent Side
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association(Respondent Entity) Entity, not human
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA acted in accordance with its governing documents (CC&Rs § 4.1) by imposing uniform assessments. The CC&Rs did not provide an exception for reduced assessments based on an owner's choice of landscaping (rock yard) or refusal of HOA maintenance services.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, as CC&R § 4.1 requires uniform assessment and no provision requires or allows Respondent to assess Petitioner less due to his rock yard and refusal of maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA Assessment Uniformity Requirement
Petitioner, who had rock landscaping and refused HOA maintenance, alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by assessing him uniform dues, arguing he should pay less since HOA expenditures on lawn maintenance were substantial and primarily benefited neighbors with grass yards.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs § 4.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Assessment, Uniform Dues, CC&R Enforcement, Landscaping Maintenance
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918038-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core conflict centered on Mr. Stoltenberg’s claim that he should pay lower HOA assessments because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards requiring more costly maintenance by the HOA.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately denied the petition. The decision rested on an unambiguous interpretation of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Judge found that the CC&Rs explicitly obligate the HOA to maintain landscaping on all individual lots and, crucially, require assessments to be uniform for all members to cover these “common expenses.” The petitioner’s argument for a reduced assessment was unsupported by any provision in the governing documents. Furthermore, evidence showed that Mr. Stoltenberg had actively refused the HOA access to his property to install a community irrigation system and to perform the very landscaping maintenance that is a central component of the assessments.
Case Overview
• Case Number: 19F-H1918038-REL
• Parties Involved:
◦ Petitioner: Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Rancho Del Oro.
◦ Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA).
• Hearing Date: March 19, 2019
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge
• Core Allegation: On December 29, 2018, the Petitioner filed a petition alleging the HOA violated multiple sections of its CC&Rs (§§ 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 14.2) by levying the same assessment fees on his property as on neighboring properties with grass lawns.
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Michael Stoltenberg)
The Petitioner’s case was built on the argument of fairness, contending that his assessment should be lower because his property does not utilize the HOA’s most expensive landscaping services.
• Primary Argument: It is inequitable for the HOA to charge him the same amount as neighbors with grass yards, given that his front yard is rock and does not receive the same level of maintenance.
• Financial Evidence: The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the HOA spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which constituted 39% of its total budget.
• Refusal of Services: The Petitioner acknowledged that he refused to allow the HOA access to his property for two key purposes:
1. To install irrigation pipes connecting his lot to a new community well.
2. To perform any landscape maintenance on his front yard.
• Justification for Refusal: The Petitioner accused the HOA of previously killing his trees during maintenance activities and stated that he now undertakes all maintenance of his own yard.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Rancho Del Oro HOA)
The HOA’s defense was grounded in its adherence to the plain language of its governing documents, arguing that its actions were not only permissible but mandated by the CC&Rs.
• Primary Argument: The HOA is legally bound by its CC&Rs to levy uniform assessments on all members and is simultaneously obligated to maintain the landscaping on every individual lot.
• Key Testimony (Diana Crites, Property Manager):
◦ CC&R § 5.1(a) explicitly requires the HOA to maintain the yards of its members.
◦ CC&R § 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly, without regard to the type of landscaping they have chosen or whether they permit the HOA to perform its maintenance duties.
◦ The Petitioner’s property is one of eight constructed by a different developer, who did not originally install grass or an irrigation system.
◦ The HOA has since drilled a community well to address water costs and has offered to remove rock and install grass for these properties, an offer the Petitioner could accept.
• Supporting Evidence (Letter from Dawn Simpson, former bookkeeper):
◦ A 2013 HOA project was initiated to install a community well for landscaping and to connect all homes, including the Petitioner’s.
◦ The letter details an incident where the Petitioner “became very heated with [the] contractor” and “declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose.”
◦ This action directly halted all construction to connect his property to the irrigation system and ceased all landscaping services provided by the HOA.
Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)
The judge’s decision centered on the clear, unambiguous language of specific articles within the CC&Rs. The petitioner failed to identify any language that would permit or require a non-uniform assessment.
CC&R Section
Key Language
Implication & Ruling
Article IV, Section 4.1
Assessments “shall be used for the… common benefit… of the Owners” and “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”
This establishes the principle of uniform, shared liability for common expenses, regardless of an individual owner’s specific use of a particular service.
Article V, Section 5.1(a)
“The Association shall maintain… landscaping… It shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.”
This article imposes a direct obligation on the HOA to maintain all members’ landscaping, not merely an optional service.
Legal Conclusions and Final Order
• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg, held the burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA had violated its CC&Rs.
• Interpretation of Covenants: In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. The judge found the CC&Rs to be unambiguous, requiring a holistic interpretation. The documents clearly mandate that the HOA must maintain all yards and must assess all members equally to fund that maintenance.
• Final Ruling: The Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. He failed to point to any provision within the CC&Rs that “allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard.”
• Order: The petition was denied. The HOA’s practice of charging uniform assessments was upheld as compliant with its governing documents.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918038-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and conclusions presented in the Administrative Law Judge Decision for case number 19F-H1918038-REL, Michael Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Short-Answer Quiz Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this case, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the central allegation in the petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?
3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what was the financial basis for his claim of unfair assessment?
4. Describe the history of the water and irrigation system issue at the Petitioner’s property prior to 2013, as detailed in Dawn Simpson’s letter.
5. What action did the Petitioner take during the 2013 well construction project, and what were the consequences of this action?
6. According to Article V, Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs, what specific maintenance obligation does the homeowners’ association have regarding individual lots?
7. How did Diana Crites, the HOA’s property manager, justify the uniform assessment for all homeowners based on the CC&Rs?
8. What reason did Ms. Crites provide for why eight units, including the Petitioner’s, were originally landscaped with rock instead of grass?
9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this hearing, and on which party does the burden of proof rest?
10. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core legal reasoning for this decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” Mr. Stoltenberg is a homeowner and member of the HOA who filed a complaint against the association. The Respondent is the governing HOA for the Rancho Del Oro community in Yuma, Arizona.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated multiple sections of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). His central claim was that it was unfair for the HOA to charge him the same assessment fees as his neighbors because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards that require more maintenance.
3. The financial basis for his claim was the HOA’s budget. The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the Respondent spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which accounted for 39% of the total budget.
4. Prior to 2013, the Petitioner made several complaints that his home was not connected to the community water system. The HOA Board’s position was that the Petitioner knew his home was not connected to the system when he purchased it.
5. During the 2013 construction to install a well and connect all homes to an irrigation system, the Petitioner became “very heated” with the contractor. He declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose, which halted all construction in his backyard and all landscaping provided by the HOA for his front yard.
6. Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping even on privately owned lots.
7. Diana Crites testified that CC&R Section 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly. She stated this uniformity applies regardless of the type of landscaping an owner has chosen or whether they permit the HOA onto their property to perform maintenance.
8. Ms. Crites testified that the eight units were built by a different developer after the original construction and were not equipped with an irrigation system or grass. She believed rock was used in the front yards of these lots due to the high cost of water, an issue later resolved by the installation of a community well.
9. The legal standard is “a preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must be convincing enough to make the contention more probably true than not. The burden of proof to establish a CC&R violation rests on the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg.
10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was that the Petitioner failed to bear his burden of proof because he could not point to any provision in the CC&Rs that allows or requires the HOA to assess him less than his neighbors based on his landscaping choice or his refusal to allow maintenance.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a detailed response for each, citing specific evidence and CC&R provisions from the case document.
1. Analyze the central conflict between the Petitioner’s concept of fairness and the Respondent’s interpretation of the CC&Rs. Use specific clauses from the CC&Rs (e.g., Articles IV and V) to support the analysis of each party’s position.
2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. How did the evidence presented by both the Petitioner (e.g., budget figures) and the Respondent (e.g., witness testimony and CC&Rs) contribute to the judge’s final decision regarding this standard?
3. Trace the history of the water and irrigation issue at the Petitioner’s property, from his initial complaints to his refusal to allow construction access. How did these past events impact the central issue of the 2019 hearing?
4. Explain the legal principle that “restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole.” How did the Administrative Law Judge apply this principle by referencing both Section 4.1 (Assessments) and Section 5.1(a) (Maintenance) of the CC&Rs to reach her conclusion?
5. Evaluate the actions of the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg. Based on the evidence presented, did his own actions—specifically, denying the HOA access to his property—undermine his legal argument for a reduced assessment? Explain your reasoning using facts from the hearing evidence.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary
Definition from Source Context
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official (Diane Mihalsky) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, and makes decisions in matters referred by state departments like the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Assessments
Charges levied by the homeowners’ association on its members. According to CC&R § 4.1, they are used for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of owners, including property maintenance, and are to be proportioned to each owner’s respective common interests.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal case to establish their claim. In this matter, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
Common Area
Defined in CC&R § 1.8 as “those portions of the Project to which title is held by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners and excepting the individual units.”
Common Expenses
Defined in CC&R § 1.9 as the “actual and estimated expenses of operating the association,” including any reasonable reserves and all sums designated as Common Expense by project documents.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for a planned community that outline the rules, obligations, and rights of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.
Easements
A right of use over the property of another. CC&R § 2.1 grants every owner a “non-exclusive easement and equitable right of use and enjoyment in, to, and throughout the Common Area.”
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The governing body for a planned community (Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association) whose members are the property owners within that community. It is responsible for managing common areas and enforcing the CC&Rs.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Rancho Del Oro.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required to win the case. The source defines it as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or community document that limits the use of the property. The source notes that in Arizona, an unambiguous restrictive covenant is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties and must be construed as a whole.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918038-REL
He Sued His HOA Over an ‘Unfair’ Fee—The Reason He Lost Is a Warning for Every Homeowner
Introduction: The HOA Fee Frustration
For many homeowners, the monthly or annual bill from the Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of constant frustration. It’s easy to look at the line items—landscaping, pool maintenance, common area repairs—and wonder if you’re truly getting your money’s worth, especially when you feel you aren’t using a particular service.
This was exactly the position of Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Arizona who believed he had an open-and-shut case to lower his HOA fees. His argument seemed logical, fair, and simple. But the ultimate ruling in his case, Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, reveals some surprising and crucial truths about how HOA rules actually work and serves as a powerful lesson for every person living in a planned community.
Takeaway 1: You Pay for the Service, Even If You Actively Refuse It
Michael Stoltenberg’s argument was straightforward: his front yard was landscaped with rocks, while his neighbors had grass. He pointed out that in 2016, lawn maintenance accounted for a significant 39% of the HOA’s total budget. He argued it was fundamentally unfair for him to pay the same assessment as his neighbors when he wasn’t consuming this costly service.
His sense of unfairness was rooted in the history of the development. His home was one of eight built by a different developer than the rest of the community. Likely due to high water costs at the time, these eight lots were constructed without irrigation systems or grass. From the very beginning, his property was different. This context makes the crucial twist in the case all the more telling. In 2013, the HOA undertook a community-wide project to drill a new well and install an irrigation system, an effort designed to rectify the inconsistency and bring these outlier properties up to the community standard. When the construction reached Stoltenberg’s property, he refused the workers access.
Testimony from the HOA’s former bookkeeper laid this fact bare:
At this time, [Petitioner] declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose. This was also to include his front yard. This halted all construction that was currently in place in his back yard, and all landscaping being provided by the HOA for the front yard.
Legally, this transformed the situation. Stoltenberg’s complaint was no longer about a service he didn’t need, but about a service he actively rejected. This case establishes a critical principle: HOA assessments are tied to your property ownership and membership in the community, not your individual consumption of services. By refusing the service, Mr. Stoltenberg did not absolve himself of the cost associated with its availability to the community.
Takeaway 2: “Common Benefit” Isn’t the Same as “Your Personal Benefit”
The legal foundation for the HOA’s position rested in the language of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Section 4.1 states that assessments are to be used for the “common benefit, and enjoyment of the Owners.”
In an HOA context, “common benefit” is a broad concept. It means that well-maintained landscaping throughout the entire neighborhood enhances curb appeal, creates a cohesive community aesthetic, and supports the property values of all residents. This includes Mr. Stoltenberg, whose home value is supported by the beautiful, uniform appearance of the neighborhood, regardless of whether his specific yard has grass. It’s the same reason a homeowner without children still pays for the upkeep of a community playground; the amenity benefits the community as a whole.
Further testimony reinforced this point. The HOA’s property manager stated that the association was still willing to remove the rock and install grass on his property, just as they had already done for two other homeowners in a similar situation. The benefit was available to him; he simply continued to refuse it.
Takeaway 3: The Rules Are a Package Deal, Not an A La Carte Menu
Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge’s role was not to rule on a general sense of fairness but to enforce the community’s governing documents as written. When examined together, two key clauses in the CC&Rs created a contractual vise, leaving the judge with no other legal option. The two clauses created a perfect, inescapable loop.
• Section 5.1(a): This clause states the HOA has an obligation that “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” The HOA wasn’t just permitted to do the work; it was contractually required to.
• Section 4.1: This clause, which also defines assessments as being for the “common benefit,” requires that they “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”
The documents legally obligated the HOA to maintain all yards and to charge every owner the same proportional amount for doing so. The CC&Rs provided no mechanism for a homeowner to opt-out of a service and receive a corresponding discount. The judge’s final ruling was decisive, emphasizing the absolute nature of this contractual obligation:
Because Petitioner has not pointed to any CC&R that allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard, Petitioner has not borne his burden in this matter.
Conclusion: The Contract You Live In
The case of Michael Stoltenberg is a powerful reminder that an HOA’s CC&Rs are not just a set of neighborhood rules; they are restrictive covenants that run with the land. When you buy the property, you are irrevocably buying into the contract that governs it. These documents are designed to prioritize the uniform application of standards for the collective good, and they supersede an individual’s personal preferences or interpretation of what seems “fair.”
This case forces every potential buyer to ask a critical question: Are you simply purchasing a dwelling, or are you prepared to become a party to the binding legal contract that governs the entire community?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael Stoltenberg(Petitioner)
Respondent Side
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association(Respondent Entity) Entity, not human
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803; Bylaws Article IV, Section 6
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA's action to uniformly assess all CR-1 Lots (including Petitioner's two uncombined lots) adhered to the Association Bylaws, which require uniform rates, and did not violate ARS § 33-1803. The governing documents took precedence over any prior reduced assessment granted by a previous Board Order.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the Association’s interpretation of the Bylaws requiring uniform assessment for all CR-1 lots was incorrect or unlawful, as her lots remained separate parcels according to the county map.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent) arbitrarily and capriciously raised annual assessments for some homeowners and not others in contravention of decades of past board practice and contractual agreements.
Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to raise her assessment from 150% to 200% (full rate for two lots) based on the Association's interpretation that the Bylaws require uniform assessment rates for all CR-1 lots, arguing the new rate violated a long-standing prior Board Order (2003) granting her a reduced rate.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Bylaws Article IV, Covenant For Maintenance Assessments, Section 6
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)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918017-REL Decision – 698354.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:35 (137.2 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918017-REL
Briefing Document: Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918017-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Loraine Brokaw versus the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (POA). The central conflict concerned the POA Board’s decision to increase Ms. Brokaw’s annual assessment from 150% to 200% for a single residence constructed across two separate lots.
The Petitioner, Ms. Brokaw, argued that this increase was unlawful and capricious, violating a nearly thirty-year practice that had been formalized by a 2003 Board decision granting her a reduced assessment. The POA contended that its action, taken on the advice of counsel, was necessary to comply with the Association’s governing documents, which mandate uniform assessments for all lots.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the homeowner’s petition. The decision established a critical legal precedent for the Association: the unambiguous language of the governing Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) takes precedence over any past Board decisions, informal agreements, or long-standing practices, regardless of their duration. Because the Petitioner owns two distinct, legally unconsolidated lots, the ALJ found that the Board’s action to assess each lot at the full, uniform rate was not a violation, but rather a correct and required application of the community’s Bylaws.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
• Parties: Loraine Brokaw (Petitioner) vs. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent).
• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), State of Arizona.
• Case Number: 19F-H1918017-REL.
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.
• Hearing Date: March 25, 2019.
• Decision Date: April 01, 2019.
II. Central Issue of the Dispute
The hearing was convened to address the following issue, as stated in the NOTICE OF HEARING:
“Whether Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent) arbitrarily and capriciously raised annual assessments for some homeowners and not others in contravention of decades of past board practice and contractual agreements based on utterly flawed legal theory, which, in fact, changed from attorney to attorney.”
The core of the dispute was the Association Board’s decision in 2017 to increase the annual assessment for the Petitioner’s property—a single home built across two adjacent lots—from 150% to 200% of the standard single-lot assessment rate. The Petitioner sought to compel the Board to revert to the 150% assessment schedule and reimburse her for costs associated with the petition.
III. Petitioner’s Position and Key Testimony
• Property History: The Petitioner testified that her husband first bought property in Sin Vacas in 1979. In 2003, the couple purchased an adjacent lot and constructed a new home that spanned across both properties (Lots 156 and 157).
• Claim of Lot Combination: The Petitioner claimed to have legally combined the two lots but presented no supporting documentation to the tribunal.
• Historical Assessment Practice: The Petitioner testified that as of 2003, the Association’s practice was to assess properties as follows:
◦ 100%: For a home on a single lot.
◦ 25%: For an undeveloped vacant lot.
◦ 150%: For a residence situated on two lots.
• 2003 Board Decision: On March 24, 2003, the Petitioner received written confirmation from the Board that it had voted to grant her a reduced assessment of 150%, formalizing the existing practice for her property.
• 2017 Assessment Change: On or about December 4, 2017, the Petitioner received a letter from the Association’s management company advising that the Board had decided to raise her assessment to 200%, citing “advice of counsel.”
• Rationale for Increase: The Petitioner stated she was given varying reasons for the change but was ultimately informed that the Board determined all plats needed to be assessed uniformly according to the Association’s governing documents. She was also told that to be assessed as a single lot, she would need to formally combine the lots on the county plat map, a process estimated to cost between $3,000 and $10,000 and require the permission of every other homeowner in the community.
IV. Respondent’s Position
The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association declined to present witnesses or exhibits. Its position at the hearing was that the dispute arose from differing interpretations of the language within the governing Bylaws. The Association’s counsel stated that the matter would be resolved based on the tribunal’s interpretation of the relevant governing texts.
V. Analysis of Governing Documents
The decision rested heavily on the interpretation of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), recorded on April 13, 1978.
Document Section
Key Provision
Relevance to the Case
Bylaws Article I, Section 5
Defines a “Lot” as “any numbered lot shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Sin Vacas Properties.”
This established that the Petitioner’s two properties, being separately numbered on the subdivision map, constitute two distinct lots for assessment purposes.
Bylaws Article IV, Section 6
“Special assessments must be fixed and apportioned at a uniform rate for all CR-1 lots, SR lots, and each 20,000 square feet of TR lots.”
This clause was central to the Judge’s decision. It establishes a clear mandate for uniformity in assessments across all lots of the same type (CR-1), which the 150% rate violated by treating two CR-1 lots differently from others.
Bylaws Article IV, Section 7
States the Board of Directors shall “fix the amount of the annual assessment against each Lot.”
This empowers the Board to set assessments but reinforces that they must do so on a per-lot basis, consistent with the uniformity requirement.
VI. Judge’s Findings and Conclusions of Law
The Administrative Law Judge made the following key determinations, leading to the denial of the petition:
• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated community documents or Arizona statutes.
• Undisputed Material Facts: The Judge found it undisputed that:
1. The Petitioner owns two distinct CR-1 lots (Lot 156 and Lot 157).
2. The lots have never been legally combined or consolidated on the Pima County Assessor’s plat map.
3. The Petitioner’s residence is constructed across both lots.
• Primacy of Governing Documents: The central conclusion of the decision was that the Association’s governing documents supersede any past Board decisions or long-standing informal agreements. The Judge stated:
• Uniformity is Mandatory: The Bylaws require that the Association assess all developed CR-1 lots at a uniform rate. By assessing both of the Petitioner’s lots at the same full rate as every other developed CR-1 lot, the Association was found to be complying with the Declaration.
• Board’s Action as Corrective: The 2017 Board’s action was not a breach of contract or an unlawful act. Instead, it was an appropriate correction of the previous Board’s 2003 order, which was inconsistent with the Bylaws’ uniformity mandate. The Petitioner’s argument that the 2003 order should supersede the 2017 order was deemed inaccurate.
VII. Final Order
Based on the findings and legal conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.
The decision affirmed that the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association Board’s action to uniformly assess all CR-1 lots did not violate Arizona state law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803) or the Association’s Bylaws.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918017-REL
Study Guide: Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association
This guide reviews the key facts, legal arguments, and final ruling in the administrative hearing case No. 19F-H1918017-REL, Loraine Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in the hearing, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific relief did the Petitioner request from the Office of Administrative Hearings?
3. What specific action taken by the Respondent prompted the Petitioner to file her petition?
4. Describe the assessment practice that the Sin Vacas Board had in place for the Petitioner’s property from 2003 until the change in 2017.
5. What was the Association’s stated reason for increasing the Petitioner’s assessment from 150% to 200%?
6. According to the Association’s Bylaws, what is the rule for how special assessments must be fixed and apportioned?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge determine that the Petitioner owned two separate lots?
8. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and did the Petitioner successfully meet it?
9. Why did the Judge rule that the 2003 Board Order reducing the Petitioner’s assessment was not a binding contract?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Loraine Brokaw, the Petitioner, who brought the action, and the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, the Respondent. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark from the Office of Administrative Hearings.
2. The Petitioner requested that the Association’s Board be compelled to honor the 30-year assessment schedule and charge her the 150% assessment rate. She also requested that the Board reimburse her for the costs of bringing the petition.
3. The Petitioner filed her petition after receiving a letter on or about December 4, 2017, from the Association’s management company. This letter advised her that the Board had decided to raise her assessment from 150% to 200% based on “advice of counsel.”
4. Beginning in 2003, the Association assessed a home on a single lot at 100%, an undeveloped vacant lot at 25%, and a residence spanning two lots, like the Petitioner’s, at 150%. The Petitioner received written confirmation of her reduced 150% assessment from the Board on March 24, 2003.
5. The Association’s Board increased the assessment after determining that all plats needed to be assessed uniformly, per the Association’s Restatement. The increase was meant to bring her two lots into compliance with the governing documents.
6. Bylaws Article IV, Section 6 states that “Special assessments must be fixed and apportioned at a uniform rate for all CR-1 lots, SR lots, and each 20,000 square feet of TR lots.”
7. The Judge’s conclusion was based on the undisputed fact that the Petitioner’s two properties, Lots 156 and 157, have never been officially combined or consolidated into a single numbered lot on the Pima County Assessor’s Office plat map.
8. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means proving a contention is more probably true than not. The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof.
9. The Judge ruled that the 2003 Board Order was not a binding contract because the Petitioner provided no proof of consideration tendered to the Association. Therefore, the Association’s governing documents took precedence over the informal agreement.
10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge concluded that the Board’s action to uniformly assess all CR-1 lots did not violate state statutes or the Association’s Bylaws.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Discuss the hierarchy of authority between the Association’s governing documents (CC&Rs) and a Board Order, as interpreted in this case.
2. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” in the context of this hearing. How did the Petitioner’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard lead to the denial of her petition?
3. The Petitioner’s case relied heavily on past practice and a 2003 Board decision to grant her a reduced assessment. Discuss why this argument was ultimately insufficient to overcome the explicit language of the Association’s governing documents.
4. Examine the contractual nature of a homeowners’ association’s CC&Rs as described in the Findings of Fact. How does this contractual relationship between the Association and each property owner shape the obligations and rights of both parties?
5. The Respondent (Sin Vacas POA) declined to present witnesses or exhibits, taking a passive stance at the hearing. Discuss the potential legal strategy behind this approach and how the undisputed material facts of the case made this a viable option.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders.
Association
The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, a homeowners’ association for the Sin Vacas subdivision in Tucson, Arizona, responsible for managing, maintaining, and improving the property.
Assessment
A fee levied by the Association on property owners to promote the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents and for the improvement and maintenance of common areas and private streets.
Bylaws
The specific articles and sections within the CC&Rs that govern the Association’s operations, including definitions, assessment rules, and voting procedures.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents for the Association, recorded with Pima County on April 13, 1978. They form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.
Any numbered lot shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Sin Vacas Properties, with the exception of the Common Area. This case deals specifically with CR-1 lots.
OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)
An independent state agency to which the Department refers matters for evidentiary hearings. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret contracts between parties.
Petitioner
Loraine Brokaw, a property owner in the Sin Vacas subdivision and member of the Association who filed the petition against the Association.
Planned Community
A real estate development where owners of separately owned lots are mandatory members of a nonprofit association and are required to pay assessments for the purpose of managing, maintaining, or improving the property.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win her case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the greater weight of evidence.
Respondent
The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, the entity against whom the petition was filed.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918017-REL
Select all sources
698354.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918017-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Loraine Brokaw (Petitioner) and the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner challenged the Association’s decision to raise her annual assessment, arguing that the increase was arbitrary and contravened a decades-long practice of assessing her two lots at a combined 150% rate, rather than the new 200% rate. The decision outlines the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, confirming that the Association is governed by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Bylaws, which require uniform assessment rates for all developed lots. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated any community documents or statutes, reasoning that the governing documents take precedence over any prior informal agreement, and denied the Petitioner’s request.
What was the core legal basis for rejecting the petitioner’s assessment challenge?
How did the Association’s governing documents dictate uniform assessment requirements?
What legal implications arose from the Board’s decision to change long-standing practice?
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Loraine Brokaw(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Jason Smith(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP Counsel for Sin Vacas Property Owners Association
Sean Moynihan(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP Counsel for Sin Vacas Property Owners Association
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803; Bylaws Article IV, Section 6
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA's action to uniformly assess all CR-1 Lots (including Petitioner's two uncombined lots) adhered to the Association Bylaws, which require uniform rates, and did not violate ARS § 33-1803. The governing documents took precedence over any prior reduced assessment granted by a previous Board Order.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the Association’s interpretation of the Bylaws requiring uniform assessment for all CR-1 lots was incorrect or unlawful, as her lots remained separate parcels according to the county map.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent) arbitrarily and capriciously raised annual assessments for some homeowners and not others in contravention of decades of past board practice and contractual agreements.
Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to raise her assessment from 150% to 200% (full rate for two lots) based on the Association's interpretation that the Bylaws require uniform assessment rates for all CR-1 lots, arguing the new rate violated a long-standing prior Board Order (2003) granting her a reduced rate.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Bylaws Article IV, Covenant For Maintenance Assessments, Section 6
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)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918017-REL Decision – 698354.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:53 (137.2 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918017-REL
Briefing Document: Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918017-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Loraine Brokaw versus the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (POA). The central conflict concerned the POA Board’s decision to increase Ms. Brokaw’s annual assessment from 150% to 200% for a single residence constructed across two separate lots.
The Petitioner, Ms. Brokaw, argued that this increase was unlawful and capricious, violating a nearly thirty-year practice that had been formalized by a 2003 Board decision granting her a reduced assessment. The POA contended that its action, taken on the advice of counsel, was necessary to comply with the Association’s governing documents, which mandate uniform assessments for all lots.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the homeowner’s petition. The decision established a critical legal precedent for the Association: the unambiguous language of the governing Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) takes precedence over any past Board decisions, informal agreements, or long-standing practices, regardless of their duration. Because the Petitioner owns two distinct, legally unconsolidated lots, the ALJ found that the Board’s action to assess each lot at the full, uniform rate was not a violation, but rather a correct and required application of the community’s Bylaws.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
• Parties: Loraine Brokaw (Petitioner) vs. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent).
• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), State of Arizona.
• Case Number: 19F-H1918017-REL.
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.
• Hearing Date: March 25, 2019.
• Decision Date: April 01, 2019.
II. Central Issue of the Dispute
The hearing was convened to address the following issue, as stated in the NOTICE OF HEARING:
“Whether Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent) arbitrarily and capriciously raised annual assessments for some homeowners and not others in contravention of decades of past board practice and contractual agreements based on utterly flawed legal theory, which, in fact, changed from attorney to attorney.”
The core of the dispute was the Association Board’s decision in 2017 to increase the annual assessment for the Petitioner’s property—a single home built across two adjacent lots—from 150% to 200% of the standard single-lot assessment rate. The Petitioner sought to compel the Board to revert to the 150% assessment schedule and reimburse her for costs associated with the petition.
III. Petitioner’s Position and Key Testimony
• Property History: The Petitioner testified that her husband first bought property in Sin Vacas in 1979. In 2003, the couple purchased an adjacent lot and constructed a new home that spanned across both properties (Lots 156 and 157).
• Claim of Lot Combination: The Petitioner claimed to have legally combined the two lots but presented no supporting documentation to the tribunal.
• Historical Assessment Practice: The Petitioner testified that as of 2003, the Association’s practice was to assess properties as follows:
◦ 100%: For a home on a single lot.
◦ 25%: For an undeveloped vacant lot.
◦ 150%: For a residence situated on two lots.
• 2003 Board Decision: On March 24, 2003, the Petitioner received written confirmation from the Board that it had voted to grant her a reduced assessment of 150%, formalizing the existing practice for her property.
• 2017 Assessment Change: On or about December 4, 2017, the Petitioner received a letter from the Association’s management company advising that the Board had decided to raise her assessment to 200%, citing “advice of counsel.”
• Rationale for Increase: The Petitioner stated she was given varying reasons for the change but was ultimately informed that the Board determined all plats needed to be assessed uniformly according to the Association’s governing documents. She was also told that to be assessed as a single lot, she would need to formally combine the lots on the county plat map, a process estimated to cost between $3,000 and $10,000 and require the permission of every other homeowner in the community.
IV. Respondent’s Position
The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association declined to present witnesses or exhibits. Its position at the hearing was that the dispute arose from differing interpretations of the language within the governing Bylaws. The Association’s counsel stated that the matter would be resolved based on the tribunal’s interpretation of the relevant governing texts.
V. Analysis of Governing Documents
The decision rested heavily on the interpretation of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), recorded on April 13, 1978.
Document Section
Key Provision
Relevance to the Case
Bylaws Article I, Section 5
Defines a “Lot” as “any numbered lot shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Sin Vacas Properties.”
This established that the Petitioner’s two properties, being separately numbered on the subdivision map, constitute two distinct lots for assessment purposes.
Bylaws Article IV, Section 6
“Special assessments must be fixed and apportioned at a uniform rate for all CR-1 lots, SR lots, and each 20,000 square feet of TR lots.”
This clause was central to the Judge’s decision. It establishes a clear mandate for uniformity in assessments across all lots of the same type (CR-1), which the 150% rate violated by treating two CR-1 lots differently from others.
Bylaws Article IV, Section 7
States the Board of Directors shall “fix the amount of the annual assessment against each Lot.”
This empowers the Board to set assessments but reinforces that they must do so on a per-lot basis, consistent with the uniformity requirement.
VI. Judge’s Findings and Conclusions of Law
The Administrative Law Judge made the following key determinations, leading to the denial of the petition:
• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated community documents or Arizona statutes.
• Undisputed Material Facts: The Judge found it undisputed that:
1. The Petitioner owns two distinct CR-1 lots (Lot 156 and Lot 157).
2. The lots have never been legally combined or consolidated on the Pima County Assessor’s plat map.
3. The Petitioner’s residence is constructed across both lots.
• Primacy of Governing Documents: The central conclusion of the decision was that the Association’s governing documents supersede any past Board decisions or long-standing informal agreements. The Judge stated:
• Uniformity is Mandatory: The Bylaws require that the Association assess all developed CR-1 lots at a uniform rate. By assessing both of the Petitioner’s lots at the same full rate as every other developed CR-1 lot, the Association was found to be complying with the Declaration.
• Board’s Action as Corrective: The 2017 Board’s action was not a breach of contract or an unlawful act. Instead, it was an appropriate correction of the previous Board’s 2003 order, which was inconsistent with the Bylaws’ uniformity mandate. The Petitioner’s argument that the 2003 order should supersede the 2017 order was deemed inaccurate.
VII. Final Order
Based on the findings and legal conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.
The decision affirmed that the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association Board’s action to uniformly assess all CR-1 lots did not violate Arizona state law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803) or the Association’s Bylaws.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918017-REL
Study Guide: Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association
This guide reviews the key facts, legal arguments, and final ruling in the administrative hearing case No. 19F-H1918017-REL, Loraine Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in the hearing, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific relief did the Petitioner request from the Office of Administrative Hearings?
3. What specific action taken by the Respondent prompted the Petitioner to file her petition?
4. Describe the assessment practice that the Sin Vacas Board had in place for the Petitioner’s property from 2003 until the change in 2017.
5. What was the Association’s stated reason for increasing the Petitioner’s assessment from 150% to 200%?
6. According to the Association’s Bylaws, what is the rule for how special assessments must be fixed and apportioned?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge determine that the Petitioner owned two separate lots?
8. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and did the Petitioner successfully meet it?
9. Why did the Judge rule that the 2003 Board Order reducing the Petitioner’s assessment was not a binding contract?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Loraine Brokaw, the Petitioner, who brought the action, and the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, the Respondent. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark from the Office of Administrative Hearings.
2. The Petitioner requested that the Association’s Board be compelled to honor the 30-year assessment schedule and charge her the 150% assessment rate. She also requested that the Board reimburse her for the costs of bringing the petition.
3. The Petitioner filed her petition after receiving a letter on or about December 4, 2017, from the Association’s management company. This letter advised her that the Board had decided to raise her assessment from 150% to 200% based on “advice of counsel.”
4. Beginning in 2003, the Association assessed a home on a single lot at 100%, an undeveloped vacant lot at 25%, and a residence spanning two lots, like the Petitioner’s, at 150%. The Petitioner received written confirmation of her reduced 150% assessment from the Board on March 24, 2003.
5. The Association’s Board increased the assessment after determining that all plats needed to be assessed uniformly, per the Association’s Restatement. The increase was meant to bring her two lots into compliance with the governing documents.
6. Bylaws Article IV, Section 6 states that “Special assessments must be fixed and apportioned at a uniform rate for all CR-1 lots, SR lots, and each 20,000 square feet of TR lots.”
7. The Judge’s conclusion was based on the undisputed fact that the Petitioner’s two properties, Lots 156 and 157, have never been officially combined or consolidated into a single numbered lot on the Pima County Assessor’s Office plat map.
8. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means proving a contention is more probably true than not. The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof.
9. The Judge ruled that the 2003 Board Order was not a binding contract because the Petitioner provided no proof of consideration tendered to the Association. Therefore, the Association’s governing documents took precedence over the informal agreement.
10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge concluded that the Board’s action to uniformly assess all CR-1 lots did not violate state statutes or the Association’s Bylaws.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Discuss the hierarchy of authority between the Association’s governing documents (CC&Rs) and a Board Order, as interpreted in this case.
2. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” in the context of this hearing. How did the Petitioner’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard lead to the denial of her petition?
3. The Petitioner’s case relied heavily on past practice and a 2003 Board decision to grant her a reduced assessment. Discuss why this argument was ultimately insufficient to overcome the explicit language of the Association’s governing documents.
4. Examine the contractual nature of a homeowners’ association’s CC&Rs as described in the Findings of Fact. How does this contractual relationship between the Association and each property owner shape the obligations and rights of both parties?
5. The Respondent (Sin Vacas POA) declined to present witnesses or exhibits, taking a passive stance at the hearing. Discuss the potential legal strategy behind this approach and how the undisputed material facts of the case made this a viable option.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders.
Association
The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, a homeowners’ association for the Sin Vacas subdivision in Tucson, Arizona, responsible for managing, maintaining, and improving the property.
Assessment
A fee levied by the Association on property owners to promote the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents and for the improvement and maintenance of common areas and private streets.
Bylaws
The specific articles and sections within the CC&Rs that govern the Association’s operations, including definitions, assessment rules, and voting procedures.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents for the Association, recorded with Pima County on April 13, 1978. They form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.
Any numbered lot shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Sin Vacas Properties, with the exception of the Common Area. This case deals specifically with CR-1 lots.
OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)
An independent state agency to which the Department refers matters for evidentiary hearings. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret contracts between parties.
Petitioner
Loraine Brokaw, a property owner in the Sin Vacas subdivision and member of the Association who filed the petition against the Association.
Planned Community
A real estate development where owners of separately owned lots are mandatory members of a nonprofit association and are required to pay assessments for the purpose of managing, maintaining, or improving the property.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win her case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the greater weight of evidence.
Respondent
The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, the entity against whom the petition was filed.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918017-REL
Select all sources
698354.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918017-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Loraine Brokaw (Petitioner) and the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner challenged the Association’s decision to raise her annual assessment, arguing that the increase was arbitrary and contravened a decades-long practice of assessing her two lots at a combined 150% rate, rather than the new 200% rate. The decision outlines the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, confirming that the Association is governed by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Bylaws, which require uniform assessment rates for all developed lots. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated any community documents or statutes, reasoning that the governing documents take precedence over any prior informal agreement, and denied the Petitioner’s request.
What was the core legal basis for rejecting the petitioner’s assessment challenge?
How did the Association’s governing documents dictate uniform assessment requirements?
What legal implications arose from the Board’s decision to change long-standing practice?
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Loraine Brokaw(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Jason Smith(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP Counsel for Sin Vacas Property Owners Association
Sean Moynihan(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP Counsel for Sin Vacas Property Owners Association
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918001-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-03-25
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
total
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$250.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Jay A. Janicek
Counsel
Jake Kubert
Respondent
Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
Counsel
Evan Thompson
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1
Outcome Summary
The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.
The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association's financial review (audit, review, or compilation). The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements.
Orders: The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.
Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from the administrative hearings regarding a dispute between Jay A. Janicek (“Petitioner”) and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (“Respondent” or “the Association”). The central issue was whether the Association’s Board of Directors acted outside its authority by unilaterally amending the Association’s Bylaws during a Board meeting on November 20, 2017, without a vote from the general membership.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Board’s action violated both the Association’s governing documents and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804). The ruling emphasized that the term “members” in the Bylaws refers specifically to the body of property owners, not the Board of Directors. Consequently, the third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated, and the Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty and refund the Petitioner’s filing fees. A rehearing in March 2019 reconfirmed these findings, underscoring the necessity of transparency and membership participation in homeowners’ association governance.
The Department of Real Estate referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by Mr. Janicek on July 25, 2018. The Respondent initially declined to present witnesses or exhibits, choosing to rely on a dispute over textual interpretation. Following an initial ruling in favor of the Petitioner, the Respondent requested a rehearing, which was granted but ultimately resulted in the same conclusion.
The Core Dispute: Bylaw Amendment Authority
The conflict arose from a Board meeting held on November 20, 2017. During this meeting, the Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws.
The Specific Amendment
The Board modified Article VIII, Section 6(d). The original text required the Board to:
• “…cause an annual audit of the Association books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year.”
The Board replaced this with language allowing for:
• “…an annual audit, review, or compilation of the Associations financial records to be made by a public accountant within 180 days after the end of the HOA’s fiscal year.”
Conflicting Interpretations of “Members”
The primary legal dispute centered on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which states:
“These Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Association by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy.” (Emphasis added).
• Petitioner’s Position: “Members” refers to the general membership of the Association (property owners), as defined in Article II, Section 7 and the Declaration. Petitioner argued that the use of “proxy” in this section further proves it refers to members, as Board Directors are not permitted to vote by proxy.
• Respondent’s Position: “Members” refers to the members of the Board of Directors. The Association argued that because the word was not capitalized in Article XIII, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at their own meetings, provided a quorum of Directors was present.
Legal Analysis and Evidence
Governing Statutes and Case Law
The ALJ’s decision was informed by Arizona law and established legal principles:
• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): This statute requires that notice of any meeting where a bylaw amendment is proposed must be sent to all members 10 to 50 days in advance. It also mandates that meetings of the board and association be open to all members.
• A.R.S. § 33-1804(F): The legislative intent of the Open Meeting Law is to promote transparency. Petitioner cited a message from Governor Ducey stating that such laws “provide residents the opportunity to resolve issues as a community rather than seek government intervention.”
• Powell v. Washburn (2006): The Arizona Supreme Court held that restrictive covenants (including Bylaws) must be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties based on the document in its entirety.
Findings of Fact regarding Authority
The ALJ identified several factors that invalidated the Board’s unilateral action:
1. Differentiated Terminology: The Bylaws consistently use “Directors” when referring to the Board and “Members” when referring to the homeowners. Article VI, Section 3 explicitly uses “Directors” to define a quorum for the Board, while Article XIII uses “members.”
2. Absence of Express Power: Article VII, which outlines the “Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors,” does not expressly grant the Board the authority to amend Bylaws. This power is reserved for the membership.
3. Lack of Notice: No Association members were present at the November 20, 2017, meeting, and no notice was provided to the general membership regarding a proposed amendment to the Bylaws as required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).
Conclusions of Law
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The final legal determinations were:
• Avoidance of Absurdity: Bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurdity. The ALJ stated, “The voices of few cannot speak for all, unless all have bestowed those few with the power and authority to speak on their behalf.”
• Violation of Statute: The Board’s action violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) due to the lack of transparency and failure to provide notice of a bylaw amendment.
• Violation of Governing Documents: The Board acted outside the authority granted to it by the Bylaws, specifically Article III and Article XIII.
Final Order and Penalties
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:
1. Invalidation: The third amendment to the Association Bylaws, enacted on November 20, 2017, is null and void.
2. Restitution of Fees: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner the cost of his filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a sum of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund as a penalty for the violations.
4. Binding Nature: Following the rehearing, the order became binding, with the only further recourse being judicial review in the Superior Court within 35 days.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal proceedings between Jay A. Janicek and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association. It examines the interpretation of governing documents, the application of Arizona Revised Statutes regarding homeowners’ associations, and the limits of a Board of Directors’ authority to amend bylaws.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship?
2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute?
3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents?
4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws?
5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed?
6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws?
7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner?
8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision?
9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision?
10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship? The Petitioner is Jay A. Janicek, a property owner and member of the Sycamore Vista subdivision. The Respondent is the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association, the entity responsible for governing the residential development where the Petitioner’s property is located.
2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute? The Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws during a regular meeting. This amendment replaced a requirement for a full annual audit by a public accountant with a choice of an audit, review, or compilation to be completed within 180 days of the fiscal year-end.
3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents? The Petitioner asserted that “Member” refers to those persons entitled to membership as defined in the Declaration, specifically every lot owner. He argued that this definition distinguishes general property owners from the “Directors” who serve on the Board.
4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws? The Respondent argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred specifically to members of the Board of Directors rather than the general membership. They contended that since the word was not capitalized, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at any meeting where a quorum of directors was present.
5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed? The statute requires that notice be sent to every owner 10 to 50 days in advance of the meeting, stating the date, time, and place. Crucially, the notice must also state the purpose of the meeting, including the general nature of any proposed amendments to the declaration or bylaws.
6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws? The Petitioner noted that the Bylaws allow for voting by “proxy,” a mechanism defined in Article III as applying to votes of the general membership. He argued that because Board members are legally prohibited from voting by proxy, the inclusion of the term in the amendment section proved the section applied to general members.
7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner? The CC&Rs constitute an enforceable contract between the Association and each individual property owner. By purchasing a residential unit within the development, the buyer agrees to be bound by the terms, powers, and restrictions outlined in these recorded documents.
8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision? This standard requires the Petitioner to prove that his contention is “more probably true than not.” It is defined as the greater weight of the evidence or evidence that possesses the most convincing force, rather than the absolute removal of all doubt.
9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision? The Administrative Law Judge invalidated the third amendment to the Bylaws and ordered the Respondent to pay a $250.00 civil penalty to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for his initial filing fee.
10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect? The Judge ruled that bylaws must be construed to avoid “absurdity” and that the “voices of few cannot speak for all” without express authority. The governing documents clearly differentiated between “members” (owners) and “directors,” and the Board lacked the power to act where authority was reserved for the membership.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.
1. The Distinction Between “Members” and “Directors”: Analyze how the specific terminology used in the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Bylaws (Articles II, III, VI, and XIII) influenced the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. How does the consistent use of these terms throughout the document prevent the Board from claiming the powers of the general membership?
2. Statutory Compliance and Transparency: Discuss the importance of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (the Open Meeting Law) as it relates to this case. Use Governor Ducey’s message regarding H.B. 2411 to explain the legislative intent behind ensuring transparency and participation in HOA governance.
3. The Role of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): Explain the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Department of Real Estate to the final rehearing. What is the scope of the OAH’s authority in interpreting contracts between homeowners and associations?
4. Contractual Interpretation and the “Powell v. Washburn” Precedent: Discuss the significance of the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in Powell v. Washburn regarding restrictive covenants. How does the requirement to give effect to the “intention of the parties” apply to the interpretation of HOA Bylaws?
5. Limits of Board Authority: Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evaluate the boundaries of a Board of Directors’ power. Under what circumstances can a Board exercise “all powers, duties, and authority” of the Association, and what serves as the definitive limit to that power?
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding officer who hears evidence and issues decisions in contested cases involving state agencies.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
The Arizona statute governing open meetings, notice requirements, and transparency for planned community associations.
Bylaws
The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration and management of an association.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the recorded legal documents that establish the rules for a planned community and create a contract between owners and the HOA.
Civil Penalty
A financial fine imposed by a government agency or tribunal as a punishment for a violation of statutes or regulations.
Declarant
The original developer or entity that established the residential subdivision and its governing documents.
Declaration
The primary governing document that defines membership and property rights within a homeowners’ association.
Member
Defined in the source context as a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision who is entitled to membership in the Association.
The Office of Administrative Hearings; an independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for contested cases.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Jay A. Janicek).
Preponderance of the Evidence
The legal standard of proof required in this case, meaning a contention is “more probably true than not.”
A written authorization allowing one person to act or vote on behalf of another, specifically used by Association members.
Quorum
The minimum number of members or directors required to be present at a meeting to legally transact business.
Respondent
The party against whom a legal action or petition is filed (in this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA).
Restrictive Covenants
Provisions in a deed or other recorded document that limit the use of property and are interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties.
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (FKA New Tucson Unit No. 8 Homeowners Association, Inc.), Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “March 25, 2019”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Jay A. Janicek”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at initial hearing; observed rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Evan Thompson”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Dennis Legere”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Becky Nutt”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Caleb Rhodes”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jake Kubert”,
“role”: “petitioner attorney”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Dessaules Law Group”,
“notes”: “Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Andrew F. Vizcarra”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management”,
“notes”: “Listed as representative for service of process for Respondent HOA.”
},
{
“name”: “Maxwell T. Riddiough”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
}
]
}
{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL”, “case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-03-25”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Jay A. Janicek”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Jake Kubert”, “attorney_firm”: “Dessaules Law Group”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Evan Thompson”, “attorney_firm”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute_and_bylaws”, “citation”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1”, “caption”: “Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.”, “violation(s)”: “Violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws Article III by amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without proper notice and a vote of the Association membership.”, “summary”: “The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association’s financial review (audit, review, or compilation)12. The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements34.”, “outcome”: “petitioner_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: true, “civil_penalty_amount”: 250.0, “orders_summary”: “The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund56.”, “why_the_loss”: null, “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “Association Bylaws Article III” ] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 1, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 500.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 500.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 250.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “total”, “summarize_judgement”: “The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents47. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty56.”, “why_the_loss”: null }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “Powell v. Washburn, 125 P.3d 373 (Ariz. 2006)”, “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)” ], “tags”: [ “HOA Governance”, “Bylaws Amendment”, “Open Meeting Law”, “ARS 33-1804”, “Membership Vote”, “Filing Fee Refund” ] } }
{ “rehearing”:{ “is_rehearing”:true, “base_case_id”:”19F-H1918001-REL”, “original_decision_status”:”affirmed”, “original_decision_summary”:”The original ALJ decision, issued on September 25, 2018, granted the Petitioner’s request, finding that the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws by unilaterally amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without first calling for a vote by the Association members1,2,3. The order invalidated the amendment, required the Respondent to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee, and imposed a civil penalty of $250.004,5.”, “rehearing_decision_summary”:”The Department granted Respondent’s request for a rehearing, which was held on March 5, 20196,7. The ALJ affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the action was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the proposed amendment8. The rehearing order re-granted the petition, invalidated the third amendment, and reaffirmed the orders for the filing fee refund and the $250.00 civil penalty8,9.”, “issues_challenged”:[ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “summary”: “Whether the HOA Board violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1, and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) in an action taken to amend the Bylaws on November 20, 201710.”, “outcome”: “affirmed_petitioner_win” } ] } }
The matter, Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG), involves a dispute over the validity of a Bylaw amendment passed by the homeowners’ association (HOA) Board of Directors12. The inclusion of ‘RHG’ in the case number confirms that the final decision resulted from a rehearing requested by the Respondent Association23.
Procedural History: The initial evidentiary hearing was held on September 5, 201824. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on September 24, 2018, granting the Petitioner’s request35. The Respondent requested and was granted a rehearing by the Department of Real Estate on November 7, 201836. The rehearing was held on March 5, 2019, where no new evidence was introduced, and the parties presented legal briefs and closing arguments2….
Key Facts and Core Issue: The dispute centered on the validity of the Board’s third amendment to the Association Bylaws, approved on November 20, 2017910. This amendment changed the financial oversight requirement from an annual audit by a public accountant to an annual audit, review, or compilation of financial records1112.
The main legal issue was whether the Board had the authority to unilaterally amend the Bylaws without a vote of the general membership and whether the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), concerning notice requirements for member meetings3…. The determination hinged on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which permits amendments “by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy”1617.
Key Arguments: Petitioner Jay Janicek argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred exclusively to the Association owners, as supported by the Bylaws’ definition of “Member” and the use of the term “proxy” (which applies to owners, not directors)14…. Petitioner asserted that since the Board acted without calling for a member vote and without statutory notice of the proposed amendment, the action was invalid and violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)14….
The Association argued that, based on reading the Bylaws in their entirety, the term “members” in Article XIII referred to the Board of Directors, particularly since the amendment was to occur at a meeting of the Board of Directors24….
Rehearing Decision and Outcome: In both the original decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ reached the same conclusion, finding that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof2728. The ALJ determined that the Association’s governing documents clearly differentiate between “members” (the body of owners) and “directors” (the elected Board)28…. The Board lacked the power to amend the Bylaws when that authority was delegated to the membership2930.
The ALJ concluded that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the amendment was adopted in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor3132.
The final outcome of the rehearing was that the Petitioner’s petition was granted32. The Board’s third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated532. Additionally, the Respondent Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00 for the violation533.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jay A. Janicek(petitioner) Appeared on own behalf at initial hearing; Observed at rehearing.
Jake Kubert(petitioner attorney) Dessaules Law Group
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918001-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-03-25
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
total
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$250.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Jay A. Janicek
Counsel
Jake Kubert
Respondent
Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
Counsel
Evan Thompson
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1
Outcome Summary
The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.
The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association's financial review (audit, review, or compilation). The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements.
Orders: The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.
Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from the administrative hearings regarding a dispute between Jay A. Janicek (“Petitioner”) and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (“Respondent” or “the Association”). The central issue was whether the Association’s Board of Directors acted outside its authority by unilaterally amending the Association’s Bylaws during a Board meeting on November 20, 2017, without a vote from the general membership.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Board’s action violated both the Association’s governing documents and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804). The ruling emphasized that the term “members” in the Bylaws refers specifically to the body of property owners, not the Board of Directors. Consequently, the third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated, and the Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty and refund the Petitioner’s filing fees. A rehearing in March 2019 reconfirmed these findings, underscoring the necessity of transparency and membership participation in homeowners’ association governance.
The Department of Real Estate referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by Mr. Janicek on July 25, 2018. The Respondent initially declined to present witnesses or exhibits, choosing to rely on a dispute over textual interpretation. Following an initial ruling in favor of the Petitioner, the Respondent requested a rehearing, which was granted but ultimately resulted in the same conclusion.
The Core Dispute: Bylaw Amendment Authority
The conflict arose from a Board meeting held on November 20, 2017. During this meeting, the Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws.
The Specific Amendment
The Board modified Article VIII, Section 6(d). The original text required the Board to:
• “…cause an annual audit of the Association books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year.”
The Board replaced this with language allowing for:
• “…an annual audit, review, or compilation of the Associations financial records to be made by a public accountant within 180 days after the end of the HOA’s fiscal year.”
Conflicting Interpretations of “Members”
The primary legal dispute centered on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which states:
“These Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Association by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy.” (Emphasis added).
• Petitioner’s Position: “Members” refers to the general membership of the Association (property owners), as defined in Article II, Section 7 and the Declaration. Petitioner argued that the use of “proxy” in this section further proves it refers to members, as Board Directors are not permitted to vote by proxy.
• Respondent’s Position: “Members” refers to the members of the Board of Directors. The Association argued that because the word was not capitalized in Article XIII, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at their own meetings, provided a quorum of Directors was present.
Legal Analysis and Evidence
Governing Statutes and Case Law
The ALJ’s decision was informed by Arizona law and established legal principles:
• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): This statute requires that notice of any meeting where a bylaw amendment is proposed must be sent to all members 10 to 50 days in advance. It also mandates that meetings of the board and association be open to all members.
• A.R.S. § 33-1804(F): The legislative intent of the Open Meeting Law is to promote transparency. Petitioner cited a message from Governor Ducey stating that such laws “provide residents the opportunity to resolve issues as a community rather than seek government intervention.”
• Powell v. Washburn (2006): The Arizona Supreme Court held that restrictive covenants (including Bylaws) must be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties based on the document in its entirety.
Findings of Fact regarding Authority
The ALJ identified several factors that invalidated the Board’s unilateral action:
1. Differentiated Terminology: The Bylaws consistently use “Directors” when referring to the Board and “Members” when referring to the homeowners. Article VI, Section 3 explicitly uses “Directors” to define a quorum for the Board, while Article XIII uses “members.”
2. Absence of Express Power: Article VII, which outlines the “Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors,” does not expressly grant the Board the authority to amend Bylaws. This power is reserved for the membership.
3. Lack of Notice: No Association members were present at the November 20, 2017, meeting, and no notice was provided to the general membership regarding a proposed amendment to the Bylaws as required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).
Conclusions of Law
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The final legal determinations were:
• Avoidance of Absurdity: Bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurdity. The ALJ stated, “The voices of few cannot speak for all, unless all have bestowed those few with the power and authority to speak on their behalf.”
• Violation of Statute: The Board’s action violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) due to the lack of transparency and failure to provide notice of a bylaw amendment.
• Violation of Governing Documents: The Board acted outside the authority granted to it by the Bylaws, specifically Article III and Article XIII.
Final Order and Penalties
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:
1. Invalidation: The third amendment to the Association Bylaws, enacted on November 20, 2017, is null and void.
2. Restitution of Fees: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner the cost of his filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a sum of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund as a penalty for the violations.
4. Binding Nature: Following the rehearing, the order became binding, with the only further recourse being judicial review in the Superior Court within 35 days.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal proceedings between Jay A. Janicek and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association. It examines the interpretation of governing documents, the application of Arizona Revised Statutes regarding homeowners’ associations, and the limits of a Board of Directors’ authority to amend bylaws.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship?
2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute?
3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents?
4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws?
5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed?
6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws?
7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner?
8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision?
9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision?
10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship? The Petitioner is Jay A. Janicek, a property owner and member of the Sycamore Vista subdivision. The Respondent is the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association, the entity responsible for governing the residential development where the Petitioner’s property is located.
2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute? The Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws during a regular meeting. This amendment replaced a requirement for a full annual audit by a public accountant with a choice of an audit, review, or compilation to be completed within 180 days of the fiscal year-end.
3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents? The Petitioner asserted that “Member” refers to those persons entitled to membership as defined in the Declaration, specifically every lot owner. He argued that this definition distinguishes general property owners from the “Directors” who serve on the Board.
4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws? The Respondent argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred specifically to members of the Board of Directors rather than the general membership. They contended that since the word was not capitalized, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at any meeting where a quorum of directors was present.
5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed? The statute requires that notice be sent to every owner 10 to 50 days in advance of the meeting, stating the date, time, and place. Crucially, the notice must also state the purpose of the meeting, including the general nature of any proposed amendments to the declaration or bylaws.
6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws? The Petitioner noted that the Bylaws allow for voting by “proxy,” a mechanism defined in Article III as applying to votes of the general membership. He argued that because Board members are legally prohibited from voting by proxy, the inclusion of the term in the amendment section proved the section applied to general members.
7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner? The CC&Rs constitute an enforceable contract between the Association and each individual property owner. By purchasing a residential unit within the development, the buyer agrees to be bound by the terms, powers, and restrictions outlined in these recorded documents.
8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision? This standard requires the Petitioner to prove that his contention is “more probably true than not.” It is defined as the greater weight of the evidence or evidence that possesses the most convincing force, rather than the absolute removal of all doubt.
9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision? The Administrative Law Judge invalidated the third amendment to the Bylaws and ordered the Respondent to pay a $250.00 civil penalty to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for his initial filing fee.
10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect? The Judge ruled that bylaws must be construed to avoid “absurdity” and that the “voices of few cannot speak for all” without express authority. The governing documents clearly differentiated between “members” (owners) and “directors,” and the Board lacked the power to act where authority was reserved for the membership.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.
1. The Distinction Between “Members” and “Directors”: Analyze how the specific terminology used in the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Bylaws (Articles II, III, VI, and XIII) influenced the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. How does the consistent use of these terms throughout the document prevent the Board from claiming the powers of the general membership?
2. Statutory Compliance and Transparency: Discuss the importance of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (the Open Meeting Law) as it relates to this case. Use Governor Ducey’s message regarding H.B. 2411 to explain the legislative intent behind ensuring transparency and participation in HOA governance.
3. The Role of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): Explain the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Department of Real Estate to the final rehearing. What is the scope of the OAH’s authority in interpreting contracts between homeowners and associations?
4. Contractual Interpretation and the “Powell v. Washburn” Precedent: Discuss the significance of the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in Powell v. Washburn regarding restrictive covenants. How does the requirement to give effect to the “intention of the parties” apply to the interpretation of HOA Bylaws?
5. Limits of Board Authority: Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evaluate the boundaries of a Board of Directors’ power. Under what circumstances can a Board exercise “all powers, duties, and authority” of the Association, and what serves as the definitive limit to that power?
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding officer who hears evidence and issues decisions in contested cases involving state agencies.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
The Arizona statute governing open meetings, notice requirements, and transparency for planned community associations.
Bylaws
The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration and management of an association.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the recorded legal documents that establish the rules for a planned community and create a contract between owners and the HOA.
Civil Penalty
A financial fine imposed by a government agency or tribunal as a punishment for a violation of statutes or regulations.
Declarant
The original developer or entity that established the residential subdivision and its governing documents.
Declaration
The primary governing document that defines membership and property rights within a homeowners’ association.
Member
Defined in the source context as a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision who is entitled to membership in the Association.
The Office of Administrative Hearings; an independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for contested cases.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Jay A. Janicek).
Preponderance of the Evidence
The legal standard of proof required in this case, meaning a contention is “more probably true than not.”
A written authorization allowing one person to act or vote on behalf of another, specifically used by Association members.
Quorum
The minimum number of members or directors required to be present at a meeting to legally transact business.
Respondent
The party against whom a legal action or petition is filed (in this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA).
Restrictive Covenants
Provisions in a deed or other recorded document that limit the use of property and are interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties.
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (FKA New Tucson Unit No. 8 Homeowners Association, Inc.), Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “March 25, 2019”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Jay A. Janicek”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at initial hearing; observed rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Evan Thompson”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Dennis Legere”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Becky Nutt”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Caleb Rhodes”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jake Kubert”,
“role”: “petitioner attorney”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Dessaules Law Group”,
“notes”: “Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Andrew F. Vizcarra”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management”,
“notes”: “Listed as representative for service of process for Respondent HOA.”
},
{
“name”: “Maxwell T. Riddiough”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
}
]
}
{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL”, “case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-03-25”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Jay A. Janicek”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Jake Kubert”, “attorney_firm”: “Dessaules Law Group”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Evan Thompson”, “attorney_firm”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute_and_bylaws”, “citation”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1”, “caption”: “Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.”, “violation(s)”: “Violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws Article III by amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without proper notice and a vote of the Association membership.”, “summary”: “The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association’s financial review (audit, review, or compilation)12. The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements34.”, “outcome”: “petitioner_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: true, “civil_penalty_amount”: 250.0, “orders_summary”: “The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund56.”, “why_the_loss”: null, “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “Association Bylaws Article III” ] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 1, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 500.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 500.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 250.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “total”, “summarize_judgement”: “The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents47. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty56.”, “why_the_loss”: null }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “Powell v. Washburn, 125 P.3d 373 (Ariz. 2006)”, “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)” ], “tags”: [ “HOA Governance”, “Bylaws Amendment”, “Open Meeting Law”, “ARS 33-1804”, “Membership Vote”, “Filing Fee Refund” ] } }
{ “rehearing”:{ “is_rehearing”:true, “base_case_id”:”19F-H1918001-REL”, “original_decision_status”:”affirmed”, “original_decision_summary”:”The original ALJ decision, issued on September 25, 2018, granted the Petitioner’s request, finding that the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws by unilaterally amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without first calling for a vote by the Association members1,2,3. The order invalidated the amendment, required the Respondent to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee, and imposed a civil penalty of $250.004,5.”, “rehearing_decision_summary”:”The Department granted Respondent’s request for a rehearing, which was held on March 5, 20196,7. The ALJ affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the action was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the proposed amendment8. The rehearing order re-granted the petition, invalidated the third amendment, and reaffirmed the orders for the filing fee refund and the $250.00 civil penalty8,9.”, “issues_challenged”:[ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “summary”: “Whether the HOA Board violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1, and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) in an action taken to amend the Bylaws on November 20, 201710.”, “outcome”: “affirmed_petitioner_win” } ] } }
The matter, Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG), involves a dispute over the validity of a Bylaw amendment passed by the homeowners’ association (HOA) Board of Directors12. The inclusion of ‘RHG’ in the case number confirms that the final decision resulted from a rehearing requested by the Respondent Association23.
Procedural History: The initial evidentiary hearing was held on September 5, 201824. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on September 24, 2018, granting the Petitioner’s request35. The Respondent requested and was granted a rehearing by the Department of Real Estate on November 7, 201836. The rehearing was held on March 5, 2019, where no new evidence was introduced, and the parties presented legal briefs and closing arguments2….
Key Facts and Core Issue: The dispute centered on the validity of the Board’s third amendment to the Association Bylaws, approved on November 20, 2017910. This amendment changed the financial oversight requirement from an annual audit by a public accountant to an annual audit, review, or compilation of financial records1112.
The main legal issue was whether the Board had the authority to unilaterally amend the Bylaws without a vote of the general membership and whether the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), concerning notice requirements for member meetings3…. The determination hinged on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which permits amendments “by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy”1617.
Key Arguments: Petitioner Jay Janicek argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred exclusively to the Association owners, as supported by the Bylaws’ definition of “Member” and the use of the term “proxy” (which applies to owners, not directors)14…. Petitioner asserted that since the Board acted without calling for a member vote and without statutory notice of the proposed amendment, the action was invalid and violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)14….
The Association argued that, based on reading the Bylaws in their entirety, the term “members” in Article XIII referred to the Board of Directors, particularly since the amendment was to occur at a meeting of the Board of Directors24….
Rehearing Decision and Outcome: In both the original decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ reached the same conclusion, finding that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof2728. The ALJ determined that the Association’s governing documents clearly differentiate between “members” (the body of owners) and “directors” (the elected Board)28…. The Board lacked the power to amend the Bylaws when that authority was delegated to the membership2930.
The ALJ concluded that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the amendment was adopted in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor3132.
The final outcome of the rehearing was that the Petitioner’s petition was granted32. The Board’s third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated532. Additionally, the Respondent Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00 for the violation533.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jay A. Janicek(petitioner) Appeared on own behalf at initial hearing; Observed at rehearing.
Jake Kubert(petitioner attorney) Dessaules Law Group
The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.
Counsel
—
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Outcome Summary
Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested association records within the statutory ten-day period. The petition was granted and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide timely access to association financial records
Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs § 4.8 and A.R.S. § 33-1805 by refusing to make available association records or to produce a receipt identifying a contractor and the amount paid for a cinderblock wall built by the community’s clubhouse.
Orders: The petition was granted because Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to records within ten days of Petitioner’s September 12, 2018 request. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
CC&R § 4.8
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Records, Record Inspection, Timely Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
CC&R § 4.8
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)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918034-REL Decision – 692859.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:53 (151.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918034-REL
Briefing Document: Curtin v. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 19F-H1918034-REL, a dispute between homeowner Linda Curtin and The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA). The central conflict arose from the HOA’s failure to provide financial records related to a small construction project within the timeframe mandated by Arizona law.
The petitioner, Ms. Curtin, alleged that the HOA violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by not producing an invoice for a $1,000 cinderblock wall project at the community clubhouse. While the HOA did eventually provide the requested records, the ALJ found that it failed to do so within the legally required ten-day period following Ms. Curtin’s formal written request on September 12, 2018.
Consequently, the ALJ granted the petition in favor of Ms. Curtin, ruling that the HOA was in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The HOA was ordered to reimburse Ms. Curtin for her $500 petition filing fee. However, the ALJ dismissed all of the petitioner’s ancillary complaints, including suspicions of forgery, concerns about the contractor’s licensing status, and other issues of HOA governance, deeming them either unsubstantiated or outside the narrow scope of the single-issue petition. The ruling underscores the strict procedural compliance required of HOAs regarding member record requests while limiting the scope of such legal challenges to the specific violations alleged.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
• Case Number: 19F-H1918034-REL
• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Petitioner: Linda Curtin (“Complainant”), a homeowner and HOA member.
• Respondent: The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. (“HOA”), represented by Community Manager Tracy Schofield.
• Administrative Law Judge: Diane Mihalsky
• Core Allegation: The HOA violated its governing documents and state law by failing to make association records available to a member upon request. Specifically, the petitioner sought a receipt and contractor details for a cinderblock wall built at the community clubhouse.
II. Governing Rules and Statutes
The case centered on the interpretation and enforcement of the HOA’s internal rules and a specific Arizona statute governing planned communities.
Rule/Statute
Key Provision
CC&R § 4.8
Requires the HOA Board to keep “true and correct records of account in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles” and to make such books and records available for inspection by all owners upon request during normal business hours.
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Mandates that all financial and other association records be made “reasonably available for examination” by any member. The statute explicitly requires the association to fulfill a request for examination within ten business days. A similar ten-day deadline applies for providing copies of records.
The respondent did not claim any legal privilege under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) that would permit it to withhold the requested documents.
III. Chronology of the Dispute
The conflict unfolded over several months, beginning with an informal inquiry and escalating to a formal legal petition.
• August 1, 2018: Petitioner Linda Curtin first emails Community Manager Tracy Schofield for a contractor recommendation.
• August 2 – September 11, 2018: In a subsequent email exchange, Ms. Curtin asks who built the garbage can walls at the clubhouse. Ms. Schofield provides the name “Roberto” but is unable to provide a contact number, stating that the Board’s Treasurer, Jim Mackiewicz, had arranged the work. The petitioner later characterized this exchange as “evasive.”
• September 12, 2018: Ms. Curtin sends a formal written letter requesting “a copy of the invoice submitted to The Ridge HOA” for the wall construction. This action officially started the ten-day clock under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
• September 24, 2018: Ms. Schofield responds, stating that she does not have the invoices at her office as records are retained “in the community.” She provides a printout of payments made to contractor Gualberto Castro, which includes a $1,000 check dated November 1, 2017, for “Block work – clubhouse.”
• November 5, 2018: Ms. Curtin requests that the invoice be brought to that day’s HOA board meeting. The document is not provided.
• November 28, 2018: After making an additional 15 phone calls regarding related meeting minutes without a satisfactory response, Ms. Curtin files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• December 10, 2018: The HOA files its answer, claiming the issue has been resolved. On the same day, Ms. Schofield emails the contractor’s invoice to Ms. Curtin. The invoice, from ValleyWide Custom Painting Inc. and dated November 2, 2017, details the $1,000 job.
• December 11, 2018: Ms. Curtin requests additional documents, including a copy of the cashed check and the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) application for the project. Ms. Schofield is reported to have stated that ACC approval was not applicable to work on common areas.
• Post-December 11, 2018: Ms. Schofield eventually provides a copy of the cancelled check for $1,000 made payable to Mr. Castro.
• February 20, 2019: An evidentiary hearing is held before the ALJ.
IV. Analysis of Evidence and Arguments
A. Petitioner’s Position
Ms. Curtin’s case was built on the initial failure to produce records and expanded to include broader suspicions about the HOA’s conduct.
• Primary Claim: The HOA violated state law by failing to fulfill her September 12, 2018 request for records within the ten-day statutory period.
• Suspicions about Documentation: The petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with the documents eventually provided. She opined that the November 2, 2017 receipt “appeared to have two different kinds of handwriting and might be a forgery.” She also pointed to the fact that the check for payment was dated one day before the invoice date.
• Ancillary Governance Concerns: Ms. Curtin raised several issues beyond the scope of her petition, including:
◦ The contractor, Mr. Castro, was not licensed as required by the Registrar of Contractors.
◦ The Board meeting minutes did not show authorization for the $1,000 expenditure.
◦ The HOA’s ACC approval process was not followed for the wall.
◦ A separate, unrelated $125,000 pool remodel project was approved improperly (this was refuted by Ms. Schofield’s testimony that it required a membership vote).
B. Respondent’s Position
The HOA, through Ms. Schofield, acknowledged the delay but argued it had ultimately complied and faced logistical constraints.
• Eventual Compliance: The HOA’s primary defense was that it eventually provided all the documents in its possession related to the expenditure, thereby resolving the complaint.
• Logistical Challenges: Ms. Schofield testified that she is an off-site community manager for numerous associations and does not keep records in her office. She stated that the HOA’s records are stored “in the community” at a separate depository.
• Commitment to Future Compliance: Ms. Schofield testified that for any future requests, she would schedule a time for the petitioner to review records at the depository within the ten-day window.
• Communication: Ms. Schofield maintained that she “communicated with Petitioner on every issue” and provided what information she had available.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision was narrowly focused on the statutory violation, setting aside the petitioner’s other grievances.
A. Conclusions of Law
1. Violation Confirmed: The judge concluded that the petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The HOA “acknowledged that it did not provide the documents or provide access to Petitioner to view the documents within ten days of Petitioner’s September 12, 2018 request.”
2. Scope of Relief Limited: The ALJ determined that the statute only requires that records be kept and made available in a timely manner. The law “has not authorized the Department… that HOAs produce records that satisfy all of a members’ stated concerns.”
3. Ancillary Claims Dismissed: The judge explicitly rejected the petitioner’s broader concerns, stating: “Petitioner’s concern with ‘transparency’ and dissatisfaction and suspicions about the records that were eventually provided do not entitle her to any additional relief in this forum.” The forgery claim was dismissed for lack of evidence, as Ms. Curtin did not present the opinion of a handwriting expert. The issues related to contractor licensing and internal HOA procedures were deemed outside the jurisdiction of the hearing for an HOA petition.
B. Recommended Order
Based on the findings, the ALJ issued a two-part order:
1. Petition Granted: The petition was granted on the grounds that Ms. Curtin had proven the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The HOA was ordered to reimburse the petitioner the $500.00 she paid to file the single-issue petition.
The order, issued on March 5, 2019, was declared binding on both parties unless a request for rehearing was filed within 30 days.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918034-REL
Study Guide: Curtin v. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918034-REL, involving Petitioner Linda Curtin and Respondent The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based exclusively on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this case and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the central allegation in the single-issue petition filed by Linda Curtin on November 28, 2018?
3. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute and CC&R section did the Petitioner claim the Respondent violated?
4. How did the HOA, through its community manager, initially attempt to resolve the records request that led to the petition?
5. What additional documents did Ms. Curtin request after receiving the contractor’s invoice on December 10, 2018?
6. What were Ms. Curtin’s specific suspicions and complaints regarding the quality and validity of the documents she eventually received?
7. What was Community Manager Tracy Schofield’s testimony regarding her role and the location of the association’s records?
8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” what is the primary requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) regarding member requests for records?
9. On what specific point did the Administrative Law Judge find that the Respondent had violated the statute?
10. What was the final Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Linda Curtin, the Petitioner and a homeowner, and The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc., the Respondent. Tracy Schofield appeared for the HOA as its Community Manager, and Diane Mihalsky served as the Administrative Law Judge.
2. The central allegation was that the HOA violated its own rules and state law by refusing to make association records available. Specifically, Ms. Curtin sought a receipt identifying the contractor and the amount paid for a cinderblock wall built by the community clubhouse.
3. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent violated CC&R § 4.8, concerning the keeping and availability of accounting records, and A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the examination of association records by members.
4. On September 24, 2018, Ms. Schofield responded to Ms. Curtin’s written request by stating she did not have invoices at her office. She did, however, provide a printout of payments made to the contractor, Gaulberto Castro, which included a $1,000.00 payment for “Block work – clubhouse.”
5. After receiving the invoice, Ms. Curtin requested a copy of the cashed check (front and back), the payee’s mailing address, and the completed Architectural Control Committee Application for the project, including the contractor’s address, license number, and insurance company.
6. Ms. Curtin complained that the contractor, Mr. Castro, was not licensed and that the job did not meet the exemption requirements for the Registrar of Contractors. She also opined that the receipt from November 2, 2017, appeared to be a forgery with two different kinds of handwriting.
7. Ms. Schofield testified that she is not an onsite manager, works for numerous associations, and does not keep any association records in her office. She stated that for future requests, she would schedule a time for Ms. Curtin to view the records at the Respondent’s records depository.
8. The primary requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) is that all financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member. The statute mandates that the association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
9. The Judge found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, while it eventually provided all documents in its possession, it failed to provide the documents or access to them within the statutorily required ten-day period following Ms. Curtin’s September 12, 2018 request.
10. The Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be granted because she established the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The Judge further ordered that the Respondent reimburse Ms. Curtin the $500.00 she paid to file her single-issue petition.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the source document.
1. Analyze the timeline of communication between Linda Curtin and Tracy Schofield, from the initial informal inquiry on August 1, 2018, to the formal petition. How did the nature of the requests and the quality of the responses contribute to the escalation of the dispute?
2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge used this standard to find the Respondent in violation of the ten-day rule while simultaneously dismissing the Petitioner’s other concerns about transparency and forgery.
3. The Petitioner raised several issues during the hearing that were not part of her original single-issue petition, such as the contractor’s licensing status, the lack of Board meeting minutes authorizing the project, and a proposed $125,000 pool remodel. Why did the Administrative Law Judge deem these points irrelevant to the final decision?
4. Evaluate the responsibilities of a Homeowners Association regarding record-keeping and member access as outlined in CC&R § 4.8 and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Based on the testimony and evidence, describe the specific procedural failures of The Ridge at Diamante del Lago HOA in this matter.
5. The Judge’s decision explicitly states that the Petitioner’s “dissatisfaction and suspicions about the records that were eventually provided do not entitle her to any additional relief in this forum.” Explore the distinction the ruling makes between a procedural violation (timeliness of access) and the substantive content or perceived legitimacy of the records themselves.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky of the Office of Administrative Hearings served as the ALJ.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
An Arizona Revised Statute requiring that all financial and other records of a homeowners association be made reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.
Complainant
An alternative term used in the document to refer to the Petitioner, Linda Curtin.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents that create and define the rules for a planned community. In this case, CC&R § 4.8, which deals with accounting records, was cited.
Department (The)
Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from HOA members and HOAs.
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal proceeding where evidence is presented and testimony is given before an administrative law judge to resolve a factual dispute. The hearing in this case took place on February 20, 2019.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
An organization in a planned community that creates and enforces rules for the properties and its members. The Respondent is The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner is Linda Curtin, a homeowner and member of the Respondent HOA.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. The Petitioner bears this burden of proof.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent is The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.
Restrictive Covenants
Legal obligations imposed in a deed upon the buyer of real estate. The document notes that if unambiguous, they are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Linda Curtin(petitioner) Also referred to as 'Complainant'; testified on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Tracy Schofield(community manager) The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association Appeared for Respondent and testified as Community Manager
Jim Mackiewicz(board member) The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association Board Treasurer
Mitch Kellogg(statutory agent) The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Gualberto Castro(contractor) Gualberto Stucco & Repairs Contractor involved in the disputed work
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically
