Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
| Case ID |
18F-H1818032-REL-RHG |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2018-08-22 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Thomas Shedden |
| Outcome |
no |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$500.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
Dina R. Galassini |
Counsel |
— |
| Respondent |
Plaza Waterfront Condominiums Owners Association, Inc. |
Counsel |
— |
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article 1 section 1.14 (A, D), 1.50; Reciprocal Easement Agreement sections 1 (A, B), 2 (A, B, C)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Association correctly categorized the commercial parking lot as a limited common element and had the authority to assess owners for its maintenance. A rehearing was granted regarding OAH jurisdiction and separation of powers; the subsequent decision affirmed that OAH has authority to interpret condo documents and statutes, and confirmed the dismissal.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the CC&Rs; the evidence showed the parking lot assessments were within the Board's authority and legally compliant.
Key Issues & Findings
Assessment Allocation for Commercial Parking Lot
Petitioner disputed the 2018 budget assessments for the commercial parking lot, arguing the Board lacked authority to designate it as a limited common element and assess costs without a full owner vote.
Orders: Petition dismissed. The parking lot is a limited common element and the Board has authority to assess. Rehearing affirmed OAH jurisdiction and dismissal.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(7)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(17)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1255(C)(2)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
Decision Documents
18F-H1818032-REL-RHG Decision – 655375.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:14:31 (65.7 KB)
18F-H1818032-REL-RHG Decision – ../18F-H1818032-REL/636950.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:14:33 (128.6 KB)
**Case Title:** 18F-H1818032-REL-RHG
**Parties:** Dina R. Galassini (Petitioner) v. Plaza Waterfront Condominiums Owners Association, Inc. (Respondent)
**Overview**
This summary addresses the proceedings of an administrative dispute between a condominium owner and her Association. The case title suffix "RHG" indicates that the materials cover both an original Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision and a subsequent rehearing decision.
**I. Original Hearing and Decision (May 2018)**
**Procedural History and Jurisdiction**
The Department of Real Estate referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings to address alleged violations of the Community CC&Rs and Reciprocal Easement Agreement. The Respondent initially moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Petitioner failed to participate in mandatory dispute resolution defined in the CC&Rs. However, the ALJ ruled that the tribunal did have jurisdiction because the Respondent had also failed to adhere to the dispute resolution provisions, thereby waiving the requirement.
**Key Facts and Substantive Issues**
The primary dispute concerned whether the Association correctly posted owner assessments for the 2018 commercial parking lot budget. The development consists of residential and commercial units, with a commercial parking lot designated for the use of commercial owners and customers during business hours.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner argued that the Board lacked the authority to assess the commercial parking lot as a "limited common element" without a ratified vote by all owners, claiming this created an unfair financial burden.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Board categorized the lot as a limited common element and assessed costs accordingly without a general unit owner vote, citing their authority under the CC&Rs.
**Original Outcome**
The ALJ dismissed the petition. The decision held:
1. **Classification:** The commercial parking lot is correctly categorized as a "limited common element" under Arizona statute because it is designated for the exclusive use of fewer than all units.
2. **Authority:** The Board acted within its authority to adopt budgets and make assessments for limited common elements.
3. **Ruling:** The assessment allocation was equitable and no violations of the CC&Rs existed.
**II. Rehearing Proceedings and Decision (August 2018)**
**Basis for Rehearing**
The Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing based on the Petitioner’s claim that the original decision was contrary to law.
* **Petitioner’s Constitutional Argument:** The Petitioner argued that the ALJ violated the "Separation of Powers" doctrine under the Arizona Constitution. She asserted that interpreting "common elements" within the CC&Rs (a private contract) is a judicial power, and the ALJ (part of the executive branch) encroached on the judiciary by interpreting the contract.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Respondent moved to vacate the rehearing, arguing the matter could be resolved as a matter of law based on existing statutes.
**Rehearing Legal
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Dina R. Galassini (Petitioner)
Commercial Unit Owner
Appeared on her own behalf; former Coordinator for the Association
Respondent Side
- Jim Flood (Board Member)
Plaza Waterfront Homeowners Association Board
Appeared on behalf of Plaza Waterfront Condominiums Owners Association, Inc.
- Roger Isaacs (Witness)
Appeared as witness for Respondent
- Gary Pedersen (Witness/Statutory Agent)
MCO Realty
Appeared as witness for Respondent; listed as Statutory Agent
Neutral Parties
- Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge for the initial hearing
- Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge for the rehearing decision
- Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner to whom the order was transmitted
- Felicia Del Sol (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Transmitted the rehearing order
Other Participants
- Peter Saiia (Observer)
Observed the hearing
- Suzanne Isaacs (Observer)
Observed the hearing
- Paul Blessing (Observer)
Observed the hearing
