The ALJ denied the petition entirely. The Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated budgeting requirements, litigation commencement restrictions, or conflict of interest statutes. The ALJ found the Board acted within its authority and the litigation actions fell under exceptions for defensive measures.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The ALJ determined that the CC&Rs provided the Board discretion over budgets/reserves, that the litigation restrictions did not apply to defensive actions or non-construction defect claims, and that the conflict of interest statute was not violated because the interested director abstained from voting.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of budgeting requirements
Petitioner alleged the Board violated CC&Rs by moving money from reserves to operating accounts without amending the budget. The ALJ found the Board had authority to do so without unit owner ratification.
Orders: Denied
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Violation of litigation commencement requirements (Coverage Case I)
Petitioner alleged the Association failed to get required owner approval before filing a coverage lawsuit. The ALJ ruled the restriction applied to construction defects or, alternatively, the action was defensive.
Orders: Denied
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Violation of litigation commencement requirements (Foreign Judgment Action)
Petitioner alleged failure to get approval for filing an action to collect a foreign judgment. ALJ found the action was defensive (indemnification recovery).
Orders: Denied
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Conflict of interest transaction
Petitioner alleged a board member (Ehinger) failed to disclose a relationship with a vendor (DCG/Ryley Carlock). ALJ found he did not vote, making the statute inapplicable, and had disclosed the relationship anyway.
Orders: Denied
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Decision Documents
17F-H1717028-REL Decision – 611197.pdf
Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:10:09 (170.4 KB)
**Case Summary: Tapestry on Central, LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association**
**Case No:** 17F-H1717028-REL
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** January 10, 2018
**Administrative Law Judge:** Suzanne Marwil
**Overview**
This hearing addressed a petition filed by Tapestry on Central, LLC (Petitioner) against the Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Association’s Board of Directors violated the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and state statutes regarding financial management, litigation authorization, and conflicts of interest.
**Key Facts and Issues**
The dispute arose from the Association’s management decisions between 2014 and 2017. The Petitioner presented three main issues:
1. **Budgeting Violations:** The Association moved money from reserve accounts to operating accounts to cover unbudgeted expenditures, including litigation and improvements, without amending the budget or issuing special assessments. Petitioner argued this violated the CC&Rs.
2. **Litigation Commencement Requirements:** The Petitioner claimed the Association filed two lawsuits—"Coverage Case I" (against an insurer) and a "Foreign Judgment Action" (to collect on a judgment)—without obtaining the consent of 75% of unit owners, as allegedly required by Section 11.3 of the CC&Rs.
3. **Conflict of Interest:** Petitioner alleged that Board member James Ehinger violated conflict of interest statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1811) when the Board hired Document Control Group (DCG), a vendor associated with Ehinger’s law firm, to reconstruct missing records.
**Hearing Proceedings and Arguments**
The Petitioner bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association argued that its budgeting practices were discretionary, that the litigation approval clause did not apply to these specific actions, and that Ehinger properly recused himself from the vendor vote.
**Findings and Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of the Association on all issues.
* **Budgeting:** The ALJ determined that while the CC&Rs authorize the Board to amend budgets, they do not *require* an amendment whenever estimates are incorrect. The Board acted within its discretion to utilize reserve funds for unanticipated expenses without needing unit owner ratification.
* **Litigation Approval:** The ALJ ruled that the Association did not violate Section 11.3 of the CC&Rs.
* *Contextual Interpretation:* The "Approval of Litigation" requirement is located within Article 11, "Construction Claims Procedures." The ALJ found this section applies specifically to construction defect claims against the Declarant (developer), not general legal actions.
* *Defensive Exception:* Even if the provision applied broadly, Section 11.3 contains an exception for "actions to defend claims." The ALJ classified both lawsuits as defensive: "Coverage Case I" sought to secure a defense from an insurer, and the "Foreign Judgment Action" sought to recoup indemnification costs.
* **Conflict of Interest:** The ALJ found no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811. The statute applies to board members who vote on an issue benefiting them. Ehinger disclosed his relationship with the law firm in executive session and abstained from the vote regarding DCG. Additionally, the conflict was noted in DCG's proposal, which offered a flat rate specifically because of Ehinger’s membership.
**Final Decision**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the alleged violations. The petition was denied.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Ryan Lorenz(Petitioner's Attorney) Clark Hill PLC
Joanne Carras(Former Board Member) Tapestry on Central, LLC TOC's representative; resigned from board in 2011
Yair Ben Moshe(Principal) Tapestry on Central, LLC Filed personal action against James Ehinger
Respondent Side
Mark Nickel(Respondent's Attorney) Gordon & Rees LLP
Christina M. Vander Werf(Respondent's Attorney) Gordon & Rees LLP Listed in distribution list
James Ehinger(Board Member) Tapestry on Central Condominium Association Also attorney/shareholder at Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite
Howard Kunkle(Community Manager) Tapestry on Central Condominium Association Witness
Neutral Parties
Suzanne Marwil(Administrative Law Judge) Office of Administrative Hearings Presiding ALJ
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order
Felicia Del Sol(Administrative Staff) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmitted the order
Other Participants
Matthew Hodeaux(Litigant) Plaintiff in separate action against Association
Cynthia Futter(Litigant) Plaintiff in separate action against Association in California
The Petitioner's petition was dismissed because he failed to appear or provide an authorized representative at the scheduled hearing, resulting in the Respondent being deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing scheduled at his request and failed to provide an authorized representative (as appearances are considered the practice of law under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31).
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&Rs
Petitioner Jeff Lion alleged that the Respondent violated Article 8 of the CC&Rs.
Orders: Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Dismissal, Failure to Appear, Unauthorized Representation, HOA, CC&R
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817009-REL Decision – 611264.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:53 (69.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817009-REL
Briefing Document: Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows HOA (Case No. 18F-H1817009-REL)
Executive Summary
This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jeff Lion (Petitioner) versus Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner’s case, which alleged a violation of the Respondent’s CC&Rs, was dismissed due to the Petitioner’s failure to appear at the scheduled hearing on January 9, 2018.
The hearing had been rescheduled to this date at the Petitioner’s own request. On the day of the hearing, two witnesses for Mr. Lion appeared but were informed by the tribunal that they could not legally represent him as they were not licensed attorneys, a requirement under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31. Because no authorized representative for the Petitioner was present, no evidence could be presented to support the claim. Consequently, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden dismissed the petition and designated the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association as the prevailing party.
Case Background and Procedural History
The matter originated from a petition filed by Jeff Lion against the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association.
• Initial Allegation: Mr. Lion alleged that the Respondent violated Article 8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
• Notice of Hearing: On October 2, 2017, the Arizona Department of Real Estate issued a Notice of Hearing, initially scheduling the matter for November 29, 2017, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix.
• Continuance: Mr. Lion filed a Motion to Continue the hearing, which was rescheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 9, 2018, without objection from the Respondent.
Analysis of the January 9, 2018 Hearing
The proceedings on the rescheduled hearing date were pivotal to the case’s outcome.
• Petitioner’s Failure to Appear: Mr. Jeff Lion, the Petitioner, did not appear at the hearing at its scheduled time.
• Attempted Representation by Non-Attorneys: Two witnesses named by Mr. Lion were present. They informed the tribunal that Mr. Lion would not be appearing and that they intended to represent him.
• Tribunal’s Ruling on Representation: The tribunal advised the witnesses that they were legally prohibited from representing Mr. Lion. Citing Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31, the judge clarified that appearances at the Office of Administrative Hearings constitute the practice of law and require representation by an attorney licensed in Arizona. The witnesses confirmed they did not hold such licenses.
• Consequences of Non-Appearance: As there was no authorized representative present for the Petitioner, no evidence was taken. The judge noted that the hearing had been continued to that specific date at Mr. Lion’s request and proceeded to vacate the matter based on his failure to appear.
Legal Findings and Conclusions of Law
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was grounded in established legal principles and procedural rules.
• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate was confirmed to have authority over the matter pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.
• Burden of Proof: The decision reiterated that the party asserting a claim—in this case, Mr. Lion—carries the burden of proof. The standard required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
• Core Rationale for Dismissal: The central conclusion of law was that Mr. Lion failed to meet his burden of proof. By not appearing at the hearing he had requested, and by not securing authorized legal representation, he “failed to present any evidence in support of his petition.”
Final Order and Implications
The decision, issued on January 10, 2018, formally concluded the administrative hearing process with a definitive outcome.
• Dismissal of Petition: The Administrative Law Judge ordered that “Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed.”
• Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, was officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
• Post-Decision Options: The order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, as stipulated by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04 and § 41-1092.09.
Key Parties and Representatives
Name/Entity
Contact/Representation Information
Petitioner
Jeff Lion
PO Box 1350, Selma, CA 93662
Respondent
Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association
Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq.
Respondent’s Counsel
Nathan Tennyson, Esq.
BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC, 373 S. Main Ave., Tucson, AZ 85701
Administrative Law Judge
Thomas Shedden
Office of Administrative Hearings
Overseeing Body
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner: Judy Lowe
Study Guide – 18F-H1817009-REL
Study Guide for Administrative Law Judge Decision: Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows HOA
This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jeff Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, Case No. 18F-H1817009-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms found within the document.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based entirely on the provided legal decision.
1. Who were the petitioner and respondent in this matter, and what was the petitioner’s central allegation?
2. Why was the administrative hearing held on January 9, 2018, instead of the originally scheduled date?
3. Describe the events that occurred at the scheduled hearing time on January 9, 2018.
4. What specific rule was cited by the tribunal to prevent the petitioner’s witnesses from representing him?
5. What is the standard of proof for this matter, and which party had the burden of proof?
6. According to the decision, what was the direct consequence of the petitioner’s failure to have an authorized representative present at the hearing?
7. How does the legal document define the term “preponderance of the evidence”?
8. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge?
9. Who was identified as the “prevailing party” and why?
10. What option was available to the parties if they disagreed with the judge’s order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The petitioner was Jeff Lion, and the respondent was the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association. Mr. Lion alleged that the respondent had violated Article 8 of its CC&Rs.
2. The hearing was originally set for November 29, 2017. It was rescheduled to January 9, 2018, because the petitioner, Mr. Lion, filed a Motion to Continue, to which the respondent did not object.
3. On January 9, 2018, the petitioner, Jeff Lion, did not appear for the hearing. Two witnesses appeared on his behalf and stated their intention to represent him, but they were not permitted to do so.
4. The tribunal cited Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31, which governs the practice of law. Since the witnesses were not licensed attorneys in Arizona, they were not legally permitted to represent Mr. Lion at the hearing.
5. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The party asserting the claim, in this case, the petitioner Jeff Lion, had the burden of proof.
6. Because no authorized representative was present for Mr. Lion, no evidence was taken in support of his petition. This failure to present evidence was a key factor in the case’s dismissal.
7. The document defines “preponderance of the evidence” by quoting Black’s Law Dictionary as: “The greater weight of the evidence…that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
8. The final order was that Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed. The decision was issued on January 10, 2018.
9. The Respondent, Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, was deemed the prevailing party. This was because Mr. Lion failed to present any evidence in support of his petition, leading to its dismissal.
10. The parties could request a rehearing pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04. The request had to be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses to explore the procedural and legal principles of the case more deeply.
1. Analyze the significance of Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31 in the outcome of this case. How does the principle that appearances at administrative hearings constitute the “practice of law” affect how individuals can pursue claims?
2. Discuss the interrelated concepts of “burden of proof” and “standard of proof” as they apply to this case. Explain why Jeff Lion’s failure to appear made it legally impossible for him to meet the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence.”
3. Evaluate the procedural fairness of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to dismiss the petition. Consider the timeline of events, including the petitioner’s own request to reschedule the hearing, in your analysis.
4. Based on the “Conclusions of Law” section, construct an argument explaining the logical steps Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden took to arrive at the final order of dismissal.
5. Examine the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings as outlined in the document. How do these two entities interact in resolving a dispute initiated by a homeowner against a Homeowners Association?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over hearings at an administrative agency to resolve disputes.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE
The Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. Title 32, Chapter 20, Article 11 is cited as giving the Department of Real Estate authority.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the petitioner (Mr. Lion) had the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are rules governing a planned community or homeowners association. Mr. Lion alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.
Motion to Continue
A formal request made by a party to an administrative tribunal or court to postpone a scheduled hearing to a later date.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
The state agency where the hearing took place, which conducts hearings for other state agencies.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, Jeff Lion.
Practice of Law
The act of representing others in legal proceedings. The decision states that appearances at the OAH are considered the practice of law and are restricted to licensed attorneys under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this case. It is met when the evidence presented is more convincing and has greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition, inclining a fair mind to one side of the issue.
Prevailing Party
The party who wins a legal case or dispute. The Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association was deemed the prevailing party.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to re-examine the issues and the decision. The parties had 30 days to file a request for a rehearing.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association.
Tribunal
A body established to settle certain types of dispute. In this context, it refers to the Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817009-REL
How One Homeowner Lost His Case Against His HOA Before It Even Began
Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Story You Haven’t Heard
Disputes with a Homeowners Association (HOA) are a common source of frustration. It often feels like a David vs. Goliath battle, pitting an individual against a structured organization with rules and resources. When faced with what they believe is an unfair application of those rules, some homeowners decide to fight back.
This was the situation for Jeff Lion, who filed a petition against his HOA, Riggs Ranch Meadows, alleging a violation of Article 8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). But this story didn’t end with a dramatic debate over property rights. Instead, it was over before it started, derailed by a simple but fatal procedural misstep. This case offers three critical lessons for anyone considering a formal dispute, revealing how understanding the basic rules of the game is far more important than just believing you have a good argument.
——————————————————————————–
1. The Most Important Step is Showing Up
The central, decisive event of the case was a stunning failure in participation: the petitioner, Jeff Lion, did not appear at the hearing on January 9, 2018. The ultimate procedural irony? This was the exact hearing date that he himself had requested.
The contrast on that day could not have been starker. While Mr. Lion was a no-show for the fight he started, the HOA—the “Goliath” in this story—arrived fully prepared, represented by its attorney, Nathan Tennyson, Esq. The judge’s decision was swift and absolute. Because Mr. Lion did not appear, no evidence was taken, and his petition was dismissed entirely.
This outcome is rooted in a core legal principle known as the “burden of proof.” Simply put, the person making a claim is responsible for presenting evidence to support it. As the one who filed the petition, it was Mr. Lion’s job to prove his case. By failing to appear, he presented zero evidence and could not possibly meet this fundamental burden. The merits of his specific complaint about Article 8 were never even heard, all because of a self-inflicted failure to participate in the process he initiated on the day he chose.
——————————————————————————–
2. Not Just Anyone Can Speak for You in Court
In a surprising turn, while Mr. Lion was absent, his two named witnesses did appear at the hearing. They informed the judge that the petitioner would not be attending and that they intended to represent him in his absence.
The Administrative Law Judge immediately shut down their attempt. The reason highlights a crucial rule that trips up many non-lawyers: the witnesses were not licensed attorneys, and the law strictly forbids such representation. Appearances at these administrative hearings are legally considered “the practice of law.”
The court’s decision was based on an unambiguous rule, which it cited in its legal conclusions:
Appearances at the Office of Administrative Hearings are considered to be the practice of law. See Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31.
This is a counter-intuitive lesson for many. You might assume a trusted friend, family member, or knowledgeable witness could speak on your behalf. This case demonstrates that the legal system has rigid rules about who is authorized to provide representation. Good intentions and a willingness to help are not enough to grant someone the legal authority to act as your advocate in a formal hearing.
——————————————————————————–
3. “Winning” is About Tipping the Scale of Evidence
In administrative hearings, the standard for winning is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This doesn’t mean proving your case beyond all doubt. Think of it like a scale. “Preponderance of the evidence” simply means you have to provide enough evidence to make the scale tip, even just slightly, in your favor.
The formal definition clarifies this concept of relative weight:
The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Applying this standard to Mr. Lion’s case makes the outcome painfully clear. Since he failed to appear and no evidence was taken on his behalf, the “weight” of his evidence was zero. It was therefore impossible for him to tip the scale, no matter how strong his case might have been in theory. Because he presented nothing, Riggs Ranch Meadows was deemed the “prevailing party” by default. This demonstrates how the legal system is a structured process focused on evidence presented according to rules, not just on feelings or the theoretical rightness of a claim.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Rules of the Game Matter
The case of Jeff Lion provides a masterclass in legal procedure. The three key lessons are simple but absolute: you must show up to your own hearing, especially one you scheduled; only licensed attorneys can legally represent you; and you must present evidence to meet your burden of proof.
This case wasn’t ultimately about CC&Rs or neighborhood rules; it was about procedure. It serves as a stark reminder that before entering any formal dispute, the first question to ask isn’t “Am I right?” but “Do I understand the rules?”
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Thomas Barrs' petition against the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 in any of the remaining seven allegations related to record access. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on all claims. In several instances, the Respondent either cured any potential breach (Issue 2), timely complied (Issue 1), or was under no legal obligation to fulfill the request in the manner demanded (emailing records, Issues 3, 6, 7).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to provide records or copies, specifically via email (Issues 3, 6, 7)
Petitioner requested records (insurance policies, budget, EDC actions) be emailed. Respondent offered examination and purchase of copies. Petitioner declined the offers and blocked the attorney's emails. The ALJD determined the statute does not mandate emailing records.
Orders: Petitioner failed to prove Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding requests for emailed documents, as the statute requires records to be made reasonably available for examination or purchase of copies, not emailed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, HOA records access, A.R.S. 33-1805, right to inspect, email delivery
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130, 133, 407 P.2d 91, 94 (1965)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H181708-REL Decision – 608861.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:24 (120.7 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H181708-REL
Briefing Document: Administrative Law Judge Decision in Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 18F-H1817008-REL, involving Petitioner Thomas Barrs and Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA). The central outcome of the December 1, 2017 hearing was the complete dismissal of Mr. Barrs’ petition. The ALJ determined that Mr. Barrs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1805 regarding member access to association records.
The decision hinged on a key statutory interpretation: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 requires an HOA to make records “reasonably available for examination” and to provide copies upon request, but it does not obligate the association to email documents to members. The Judge found that the HOA’s offers to allow Mr. Barrs to inspect records in person were legally sufficient. The failure to access records was ultimately attributed to the petitioner’s own actions, including a self-initiated communication breakdown with a key Board member and a subsequent refusal of the HOA’s offers for in-person inspection. The Judge concluded that for each of the contested allegations, the HOA had either fulfilled its statutory duty, the requested records did not exist, or its attempts to provide access were declined by the petitioner.
Case Overview
Case Name
Thomas Barrs (Petitioner) v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent)
Case Number
18F-H1817008-REL
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Thomas Shedden
Hearing Date
December 1, 2017
Decision Date
December 27, 2017
Central Allegation
The Petitioner alleged nine instances where the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to accommodate requests to inspect or receive via email various HOA records.
Final Disposition
The Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Analysis of Petitioner’s Allegations and Findings
The petition, filed on September 4, 2017, contained nine specific allegations of statutory violations by the HOA. These issues and the ALJ’s findings are detailed below.
Summary of Allegations
Request
Date of Request
Finding of Fact
View April 29, 2017 Board election documents
May 19, 2017
No violation; request fulfilled within statutory time limit.
View March 18, 2017 Board election documents
June 17, 2017
No violation; HOA cured any potential breach with offers to inspect, which were declined.
Email copies of insurance policies
July 11, 2017
No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.
Insurance company phone number & policy number
Aug 26, 2017
No violation; Petitioner acknowledged receipt of information.
Email Secretary’s shorthand notes from March 18 meeting
July 11, 2017
No violation; the requested notes do not exist.
Email the annual budget
July 11, 2017
No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.
Email written record of EDC actions after July 2016
July 11, 2017
No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.
Email name of EDC chairperson
July 11, 2017
Withdrawn by Petitioner at the hearing.
Email list of Board meeting dates
July 11, 2017
Withdrawn by Petitioner at the hearing.
Detailed Findings by Issue
At the hearing, the Petitioner withdrew his allegations concerning the name of the EDC chairperson (Issue 8) and the list of past Board meeting dates (Issue 9).
• Issue 4 (Insurance Information): The Judge noted that Mr. Barrs “effectively acknowledged that he has received the insurance company’s phone number and the policy number.” No violation was found.
• Issue 5 (Shorthand Meeting Notes): The evidence demonstrated that no shorthand notes from the March 18, 2017 meeting exist. The Board had previously informed Mr. Barrs of this fact. Consequently, the Judge found no violation.
The petitioner requested to view documents related to the April 29, 2017, election via an email sent at 8:59 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2017. The Judge determined that this request was effectively received on the next business day, Monday, May 22, 2017. Under the statute, the HOA had ten business days, until June 5, 2017, to fulfill the request. The HOA made the documents available for Mr. Barrs’ inspection on June 3, 2017, which was within the required timeframe. The decision also dismissed related claims by Mr. Barrs regarding a “late ballot” (which was actually a nomination petition) and “undeliverable ballots” (which did not exist as mailing envelopes had no return address). The Judge concluded the HOA did not violate the statute.
These issues center on a series of requests made in June and July 2017 and a significant communication failure initiated by the Petitioner.
Background: In March 2017, after HOA Board member Brian Schoeffler asked to be removed from a resident email thread, Mr. Barrs ceased all email communication with Mr. Schoeffler and blocked his email address, preventing him from receiving any emails sent by Mr. Schoeffler.
Timeline of Events:
• June 17, 2017: Mr. Barrs requested to view the March 18 election ballots (Issue 2). On June 19, Board President Catherine Overby informed him the materials were with Mr. Schoeffler and that he should contact him.
• July 11, 2017: Mr. Barrs emailed the Board (excluding Mr. Schoeffler) requesting that the insurance policies (Issue 3), annual budget (Issue 6), and EDC records (Issue 7) be emailed to him.
• July 12, 2017: Ms. Overby responded that she would forward the request to Mr. Schoeffler and later stated that Mr. Barrs should go to Mr. Schoeffler’s house to view the records. On the same day, Mr. Schoeffler emailed Mr. Barrs—an email Mr. Barrs did not receive—offering to meet and provide copies.
• July 25, 2017: Mr. Barrs informed the Board for the first time that he had blocked Mr. Schoeffler’s emails.
• July 28, 2017: Mr. Schoeffler sent another email, offering dates to meet and explaining that the statute required only that documents be made “reasonably available.”
• July 29, 2017: Mr. Barrs responded to the Board, stating he “will not stipulate to the preconditions” set by Mr. Schoeffler and concluding that the documents were “apparently” not available.
Finding: The Judge found that the Board responded to the July 11 requests in a timely manner (on July 12) and continued to try and accommodate them. However, Mr. Barrs “initially delayed matters by refusing to contact Mr. Schoeffler and he then declined Respondent’s offers.” For Issue 2, the Judge concluded that even if the HOA had initially failed to provide access within ten days, it had “cured its breach” with the subsequent offers of inspection on July 12 and July 28, which Mr. Barrs declined.
Central Legal Conclusions
The ALJ’s decision rested on several key conclusions of law regarding statutory interpretation and the burden of proof.
• Burden of Proof: Mr. Barrs, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The Judge concluded that he failed to meet this standard on all counts.
• Interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A): This was the pivotal legal finding. The statute reads, in part:
• The ALJ concluded that this language does not obligate an HOA to email records to a member. The statutory requirement is satisfied when the association makes the records “reasonably available” for in-person inspection and allows the member to purchase copies (for a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page).
• Application to the Case: The HOA’s offer for Mr. Barrs to examine the requested documents at Mr. Schoeffler’s residence and to have copies made fulfilled its legal duty. Mr. Barrs’ insistence on receiving documents via email and his ultimate refusal of the in-person inspection offer were the reasons he did not gain access to the records.
Final Order
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order:
“IT IS ORDERED that Thomas Barrs’ petition is dismissed.”
The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
Study Guide – 18F-H181708-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 18F-H1817008-REL, Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner Thomas Barrs and Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. It covers the key facts, legal arguments, and the final judgment as detailed in the source document.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided case information.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific Arizona Revised Statutes did Thomas Barrs allege the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association had violated?
3. Describe the communication issue involving Mr. Barrs and Mr. Schoeffler that complicated the records requests made in July 2017.
4. What was the Judge’s finding regarding Mr. Barrs’ request for the Secretary’s shorthand notes from the March 18, 2017 meeting (Issue 5)?
5. Explain why the Judge determined that the Respondent’s handling of the May 19, 2017 request for election documents (Issue 1) was compliant with the statute.
6. According to the Judge’s Conclusions of Law, what does ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1805 require of an association regarding requests for records? Does this include emailing them?
7. Which of his initial nine allegations did Mr. Barrs withdraw during the hearing?
8. How did Mr. Barrs respond to Mr. Schoeffler’s July 28, 2017 email, which offered dates to meet and review documents?
9. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which party bears the burden of meeting it?
10. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Thomas Barrs, the Petitioner, and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Mr. Barrs filed a petition alleging violations by the HOA, while the HOA, represented by Brian Schoeffler, disputed the allegations.
2. Mr. Barrs alleged that the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1805 and 33-1812. The case focused on nine specific instances where Mr. Barrs alleged the HOA failed to accommodate his requests for records under section 33-1805.
3. In March 2017, Mr. Schoeffler asked to be removed from a group email thread. In response, Mr. Barrs stopped sending emails to Mr. Schoeffler and also blocked incoming emails from him, which prevented him from receiving Mr. Schoeffler’s direct offers to inspect the requested documents.
4. The Judge found that the preponderance of the evidence showed that no shorthand notes from the March 18, 2017 meeting existed. The Board had informed Mr. Barrs of this fact shortly after he made his request, and therefore the Respondent did not violate the statute.
5. Mr. Barrs’ request was emailed after business hours on Friday, May 19, 2017, making its effective receipt date Monday, May 22. The Respondent fulfilled the request on June 3, 2017, which was within the ten-business-day timeframe required by law.
6. ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1805 requires that an association’s records be made “reasonably available for examination” and that copies be provided upon request within ten business days. The Judge concluded that this statute does not legally obligate the Respondent to email copies of records.
7. During the hearing, Mr. Barrs withdrew his allegations regarding the request for the name of the EDC chairman (Issue 8) and the request for a list of Board meeting dates from the prior year (Issue 9).
8. On July 29, 2017, Mr. Barrs responded that he “will not stipulate to the preconditions” Mr. Schoeffler placed on his ability to review the documentation. He stated that “apparently” the documents were not available, effectively declining the offer to examine them.
9. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The burden of proof was on the Petitioner, Mr. Barrs, to show that the Respondent committed the alleged violations.
10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Thomas Barrs’ petition be dismissed. The Respondent, Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive essay response for each, citing specific facts from the decision.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1805. How did the distinction between making records “reasonably available” for examination versus the petitioner’s demand for them to be emailed shape the outcome of Issues 3, 6, and 7?
2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. Select two of Mr. Barrs’ allegations that the Judge found were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and explain the specific facts that led to that conclusion.
3. Examine the communication breakdown between Thomas Barrs and Brian Schoeffler. How did the actions of both individuals (specifically, Mr. Schoeffler’s request in March and Mr. Barrs’ subsequent blocking of emails) directly contribute to the dispute and influence the Judge’s findings?
4. Trace the timeline and events surrounding the request to view ballots from the March 18, 2017 election (Issue 2). Explain the Judge’s reasoning for concluding that even if the Respondent had initially failed to grant access, it had “cured its breach.”
5. Evaluate the actions of the Respondent, Desert Ranch HOA, in response to Mr. Barrs’ multiple requests. Based on the Findings of Fact, construct an argument that the HOA made sufficient and reasonable efforts to comply with its statutory obligations.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official (in this case, Thomas Shedden) who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Sections 33-1805 and 33-1812 were central to this case.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, Mr. Barrs bore the burden of proof.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the decision where the Judge applies the relevant laws and legal principles to the established facts of the case to reach a judgment.
An apparent committee within the HOA (“Environmental Design Committee” is a common name, though not specified). Mr. Barrs requested written records of all actions taken by the EDC after July 2016.
Findings of Fact
The section of the decision that outlines the factual determinations made by the Judge based on the evidence presented at the hearing.
Hearing
The formal proceeding where the Petitioner and Respondent present their cases before the Administrative Law Judge. This hearing took place on December 1, 2017.
The final, legally binding ruling of the Judge. In this case, the order was to dismiss the Petitioner’s petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Thomas Barrs was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this matter. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Blog Post – 18F-H181708-REL
Select all sources
608861.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H181708-REL
1 source
This administrative law judge decision concerns a dispute between Petitioner Thomas Barrs and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Barrs alleged that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statutes sections 33-1805 and 33-1812 on multiple occasions by failing to accommodate his requests to inspect or be emailed various association records, including election ballots, insurance policies, and financial documents. The findings of fact detail nine specific requests made by Mr. Barrs, some of which he later withdrew or were deemed satisfied. The Administrative Law Judge determined that Mr. Barrs failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated the statute, noting that the law only requires records be made “reasonably available” for examination and copying, not necessarily emailed. Ultimately, the judge dismissed Mr. Barrs’ petition, concluding that the Respondent was the prevailing party.
Audio Overview
Video Overview Video Overview
Mind Map Mind Map
Reports Reports
Flashcards Flashcards
Quiz Quiz
00:00 / 00:00
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Thomas Barrs(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Brian Schoeffler(HOA attorney) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Appeared for Respondent; also identified as a Board member
Catherine Overby(board president) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Patrick Rice(board member) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Thomas Shedden(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Thomas Barrs' petition against the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 in any of the remaining seven allegations related to record access. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on all claims. In several instances, the Respondent either cured any potential breach (Issue 2), timely complied (Issue 1), or was under no legal obligation to fulfill the request in the manner demanded (emailing records, Issues 3, 6, 7).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to provide records or copies, specifically via email (Issues 3, 6, 7)
Petitioner requested records (insurance policies, budget, EDC actions) be emailed. Respondent offered examination and purchase of copies. Petitioner declined the offers and blocked the attorney's emails. The ALJD determined the statute does not mandate emailing records.
Orders: Petitioner failed to prove Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding requests for emailed documents, as the statute requires records to be made reasonably available for examination or purchase of copies, not emailed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, HOA records access, A.R.S. 33-1805, right to inspect, email delivery
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130, 133, 407 P.2d 91, 94 (1965)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H181708-REL Decision – 608861.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:04:22 (120.7 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H181708-REL
Briefing Document: Administrative Law Judge Decision in Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 18F-H1817008-REL, involving Petitioner Thomas Barrs and Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA). The central outcome of the December 1, 2017 hearing was the complete dismissal of Mr. Barrs’ petition. The ALJ determined that Mr. Barrs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1805 regarding member access to association records.
The decision hinged on a key statutory interpretation: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 requires an HOA to make records “reasonably available for examination” and to provide copies upon request, but it does not obligate the association to email documents to members. The Judge found that the HOA’s offers to allow Mr. Barrs to inspect records in person were legally sufficient. The failure to access records was ultimately attributed to the petitioner’s own actions, including a self-initiated communication breakdown with a key Board member and a subsequent refusal of the HOA’s offers for in-person inspection. The Judge concluded that for each of the contested allegations, the HOA had either fulfilled its statutory duty, the requested records did not exist, or its attempts to provide access were declined by the petitioner.
Case Overview
Case Name
Thomas Barrs (Petitioner) v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent)
Case Number
18F-H1817008-REL
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Thomas Shedden
Hearing Date
December 1, 2017
Decision Date
December 27, 2017
Central Allegation
The Petitioner alleged nine instances where the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to accommodate requests to inspect or receive via email various HOA records.
Final Disposition
The Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Analysis of Petitioner’s Allegations and Findings
The petition, filed on September 4, 2017, contained nine specific allegations of statutory violations by the HOA. These issues and the ALJ’s findings are detailed below.
Summary of Allegations
Request
Date of Request
Finding of Fact
View April 29, 2017 Board election documents
May 19, 2017
No violation; request fulfilled within statutory time limit.
View March 18, 2017 Board election documents
June 17, 2017
No violation; HOA cured any potential breach with offers to inspect, which were declined.
Email copies of insurance policies
July 11, 2017
No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.
Insurance company phone number & policy number
Aug 26, 2017
No violation; Petitioner acknowledged receipt of information.
Email Secretary’s shorthand notes from March 18 meeting
July 11, 2017
No violation; the requested notes do not exist.
Email the annual budget
July 11, 2017
No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.
Email written record of EDC actions after July 2016
July 11, 2017
No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.
Email name of EDC chairperson
July 11, 2017
Withdrawn by Petitioner at the hearing.
Email list of Board meeting dates
July 11, 2017
Withdrawn by Petitioner at the hearing.
Detailed Findings by Issue
At the hearing, the Petitioner withdrew his allegations concerning the name of the EDC chairperson (Issue 8) and the list of past Board meeting dates (Issue 9).
• Issue 4 (Insurance Information): The Judge noted that Mr. Barrs “effectively acknowledged that he has received the insurance company’s phone number and the policy number.” No violation was found.
• Issue 5 (Shorthand Meeting Notes): The evidence demonstrated that no shorthand notes from the March 18, 2017 meeting exist. The Board had previously informed Mr. Barrs of this fact. Consequently, the Judge found no violation.
The petitioner requested to view documents related to the April 29, 2017, election via an email sent at 8:59 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2017. The Judge determined that this request was effectively received on the next business day, Monday, May 22, 2017. Under the statute, the HOA had ten business days, until June 5, 2017, to fulfill the request. The HOA made the documents available for Mr. Barrs’ inspection on June 3, 2017, which was within the required timeframe. The decision also dismissed related claims by Mr. Barrs regarding a “late ballot” (which was actually a nomination petition) and “undeliverable ballots” (which did not exist as mailing envelopes had no return address). The Judge concluded the HOA did not violate the statute.
These issues center on a series of requests made in June and July 2017 and a significant communication failure initiated by the Petitioner.
Background: In March 2017, after HOA Board member Brian Schoeffler asked to be removed from a resident email thread, Mr. Barrs ceased all email communication with Mr. Schoeffler and blocked his email address, preventing him from receiving any emails sent by Mr. Schoeffler.
Timeline of Events:
• June 17, 2017: Mr. Barrs requested to view the March 18 election ballots (Issue 2). On June 19, Board President Catherine Overby informed him the materials were with Mr. Schoeffler and that he should contact him.
• July 11, 2017: Mr. Barrs emailed the Board (excluding Mr. Schoeffler) requesting that the insurance policies (Issue 3), annual budget (Issue 6), and EDC records (Issue 7) be emailed to him.
• July 12, 2017: Ms. Overby responded that she would forward the request to Mr. Schoeffler and later stated that Mr. Barrs should go to Mr. Schoeffler’s house to view the records. On the same day, Mr. Schoeffler emailed Mr. Barrs—an email Mr. Barrs did not receive—offering to meet and provide copies.
• July 25, 2017: Mr. Barrs informed the Board for the first time that he had blocked Mr. Schoeffler’s emails.
• July 28, 2017: Mr. Schoeffler sent another email, offering dates to meet and explaining that the statute required only that documents be made “reasonably available.”
• July 29, 2017: Mr. Barrs responded to the Board, stating he “will not stipulate to the preconditions” set by Mr. Schoeffler and concluding that the documents were “apparently” not available.
Finding: The Judge found that the Board responded to the July 11 requests in a timely manner (on July 12) and continued to try and accommodate them. However, Mr. Barrs “initially delayed matters by refusing to contact Mr. Schoeffler and he then declined Respondent’s offers.” For Issue 2, the Judge concluded that even if the HOA had initially failed to provide access within ten days, it had “cured its breach” with the subsequent offers of inspection on July 12 and July 28, which Mr. Barrs declined.
Central Legal Conclusions
The ALJ’s decision rested on several key conclusions of law regarding statutory interpretation and the burden of proof.
• Burden of Proof: Mr. Barrs, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The Judge concluded that he failed to meet this standard on all counts.
• Interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A): This was the pivotal legal finding. The statute reads, in part:
• The ALJ concluded that this language does not obligate an HOA to email records to a member. The statutory requirement is satisfied when the association makes the records “reasonably available” for in-person inspection and allows the member to purchase copies (for a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page).
• Application to the Case: The HOA’s offer for Mr. Barrs to examine the requested documents at Mr. Schoeffler’s residence and to have copies made fulfilled its legal duty. Mr. Barrs’ insistence on receiving documents via email and his ultimate refusal of the in-person inspection offer were the reasons he did not gain access to the records.
Final Order
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order:
“IT IS ORDERED that Thomas Barrs’ petition is dismissed.”
The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Thomas Barrs' petition against the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 in any of the remaining seven allegations related to record access. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on all claims. In several instances, the Respondent either cured any potential breach (Issue 2), timely complied (Issue 1), or was under no legal obligation to fulfill the request in the manner demanded (emailing records, Issues 3, 6, 7).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to provide records or copies, specifically via email (Issues 3, 6, 7)
Petitioner requested records (insurance policies, budget, EDC actions) be emailed. Respondent offered examination and purchase of copies. Petitioner declined the offers and blocked the attorney's emails. The ALJD determined the statute does not mandate emailing records.
Orders: Petitioner failed to prove Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding requests for emailed documents, as the statute requires records to be made reasonably available for examination or purchase of copies, not emailed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, HOA records access, A.R.S. 33-1805, right to inspect, email delivery
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130, 133, 407 P.2d 91, 94 (1965)
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Thomas Barrs' petition against the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 in any of the remaining seven allegations related to record access. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on all claims. In several instances, the Respondent either cured any potential breach (Issue 2), timely complied (Issue 1), or was under no legal obligation to fulfill the request in the manner demanded (emailing records, Issues 3, 6, 7).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to provide records or copies, specifically via email (Issues 3, 6, 7)
Petitioner requested records (insurance policies, budget, EDC actions) be emailed. Respondent offered examination and purchase of copies. Petitioner declined the offers and blocked the attorney's emails. The ALJD determined the statute does not mandate emailing records.
Orders: Petitioner failed to prove Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding requests for emailed documents, as the statute requires records to be made reasonably available for examination or purchase of copies, not emailed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, HOA records access, A.R.S. 33-1805, right to inspect, email delivery
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130, 133, 407 P.2d 91, 94 (1965)
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Thomas Barrs' petition against the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 in any of the remaining seven allegations related to record access. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on all claims. In several instances, the Respondent either cured any potential breach (Issue 2), timely complied (Issue 1), or was under no legal obligation to fulfill the request in the manner demanded (emailing records, Issues 3, 6, 7).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to provide records or copies, specifically via email (Issues 3, 6, 7)
Petitioner requested records (insurance policies, budget, EDC actions) be emailed. Respondent offered examination and purchase of copies. Petitioner declined the offers and blocked the attorney's emails. The ALJD determined the statute does not mandate emailing records.
Orders: Petitioner failed to prove Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding requests for emailed documents, as the statute requires records to be made reasonably available for examination or purchase of copies, not emailed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, HOA records access, A.R.S. 33-1805, right to inspect, email delivery
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130, 133, 407 P.2d 91, 94 (1965)
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Thomas Barrs' petition against the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 in any of the remaining seven allegations related to record access. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on all claims. In several instances, the Respondent either cured any potential breach (Issue 2), timely complied (Issue 1), or was under no legal obligation to fulfill the request in the manner demanded (emailing records, Issues 3, 6, 7).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to provide records or copies, specifically via email (Issues 3, 6, 7)
Petitioner requested records (insurance policies, budget, EDC actions) be emailed. Respondent offered examination and purchase of copies. Petitioner declined the offers and blocked the attorney's emails. The ALJD determined the statute does not mandate emailing records.
Orders: Petitioner failed to prove Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding requests for emailed documents, as the statute requires records to be made reasonably available for examination or purchase of copies, not emailed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, HOA records access, A.R.S. 33-1805, right to inspect, email delivery
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130, 133, 407 P.2d 91, 94 (1965)
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Thomas Barrs' petition against the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 in any of the remaining seven allegations related to record access. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on all claims. In several instances, the Respondent either cured any potential breach (Issue 2), timely complied (Issue 1), or was under no legal obligation to fulfill the request in the manner demanded (emailing records, Issues 3, 6, 7).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to provide records or copies, specifically via email (Issues 3, 6, 7)
Petitioner requested records (insurance policies, budget, EDC actions) be emailed. Respondent offered examination and purchase of copies. Petitioner declined the offers and blocked the attorney's emails. The ALJD determined the statute does not mandate emailing records.
Orders: Petitioner failed to prove Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding requests for emailed documents, as the statute requires records to be made reasonably available for examination or purchase of copies, not emailed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, HOA records access, A.R.S. 33-1805, right to inspect, email delivery
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130, 133, 407 P.2d 91, 94 (1965)
