Case Summary
| Case ID |
17F-H1716005-REL |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2017-07-10 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome |
full |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$500.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
William M. Brown |
Counsel |
— |
| Respondent |
Terravita Country Club, Inc. |
Counsel |
Joshua Bolen |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent, Terravita Country Club, Inc., violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide access to records within the mandated 10 business days. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute and refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was imposed.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to timely respond to records request
Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to timely respond to his July 30, 2016 records request, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The Tribunal found that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to fulfill the request for examination of records within 10 business days, violating A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding Petitioner’s request for records within 10 days of the Order. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
- A.R.S. § 33-1805
- A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Records Request, Failure to Respond, Statutory Violation, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:
- A.R.S. § 33-1805
- A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.01
Decision Documents
17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 574630.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:03 (87.9 KB)
17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 575115.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:03 (789.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716005-REL
Briefing Document: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document summarizes the administrative hearing and final order in the case of William M. Brown (Petitioner) versus Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Respondent), Case No. 17F-H1716005-REL. The central issue was Terravita’s failure to respond to a member’s request for records within the 10-business-day timeframe mandated by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Petitioner’s testimony and evidence to be credible, establishing that Mr. Brown submitted a valid records request via e-mail on July 30, 2016, to which Terravita did not timely respond. The ALJ found the testimony of Terravita’s key witness to be unreliable and rejected Terravita’s defenses, which included claims of non-receipt, improper submission procedure, and falsified evidence.
Ultimately, the ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, concluding that Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The recommended order, which was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, mandated that Terravita comply with the records request, reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee, and deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party. No civil penalty was assessed.
Case Overview
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
17F-H1716005-REL (OAH) / HO 17-16/005 (DRE)
Petitioner
William M. Brown (Appeared on behalf of himself)
Respondent
Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Represented by Joshua Bolen, Esq.)
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Adopting Authority
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Commissioner
Judy Lowe
Hearing Date
June 19, 2017
ALJ Decision Date
July 10, 2017
Final Order Date
July 11, 2017
Chronology of Events
• February 12, 2016: Anita Bell requests records from Terravita via Mr. Brown’s e-mail account. The request is forwarded to General Manager Tom Forbes.
• February 19, 2016: Mr. Forbes informs Ms. Bell that the records will be ready on February 22.
• March 14, 2016: Ms. Bell submits another records request from Mr. Brown’s e-mail account.
• March 18, 2016: Cici Rausch, Terravita’s Director of Administration, informs Ms. Bell when the records can be retrieved.
• July 29, 2016: Date of the records request at the center of the legal dispute.
• July 30, 2016: Mr. Brown e-mails the records request to Terravita’s Secretary, Fran Wiley. On the same day, he separately requests records from the Terravita Community Association, Inc. (TCA).
• August 6, 2016: Mr. Brown sends another records request to Ms. Wiley.
• August 8, 2016: TCA responds to Mr. Brown’s July 30 request.
• August 12, 2016: Terravita responds to Mr. Brown’s August 6 request.
• August 18, 2016: Mr. Brown files a Petition for Hearing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging Terravita’s failure to timely respond to his July 30 request.
• September 9, 2016: Terravita files a response, alleging it did not receive the July 30 records request.
• June 19, 2017: The administrative hearing is held.
• July 10, 2017: The ALJ issues a decision finding in favor of Mr. Brown.
• July 11, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepts the ALJ’s decision and issues a Final Order.
Analysis of the Central Dispute
The core of the case revolved around whether Terravita violated its statutory duty to respond to Mr. Brown’s records request dated July 29, 2016, which he e-mailed on July 30, 2016.
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence
• Core Allegation: Mr. Brown testified that he sent the records request via e-mail to Terravita’s Secretary, Fran Wiley, on July 30, 2016, and that Terravita failed to respond within the 10-business-day period mandated by law.
• Evidence: Mr. Brown submitted an August 12, 2016 forwarded e-mail (Exhibit P2) that contained the original July 30, 2016 e-mail sent to Ms. Wiley.
• Judicial Finding: The ALJ found Mr. Brown’s testimony to be “credible.”
Respondent’s Defenses and the Court’s Findings
Terravita presented several arguments to contest the allegation, all of which were ultimately unpersuasive to the court.
1. Claim of Non-Receipt: Terravita contended it never received the July 30, 2016 request. Ms. Wiley testified she did not receive a request from Mr. Brown on July 29 or July 30.
◦ Court’s Finding: The ALJ found Ms. Wiley’s testimony to be “unreliable.” The decision noted that Ms. Wiley testified that Terravita was “indirectly” informed around August 5 that “perhaps Mr. Brown had made the request,” which undermined the claim of complete non-awareness.
2. Use of an Incorrect E-mail Address: Ms. Wiley testified that she did not use the e-mail address to which Mr. Brown sent the request for Terravita affairs, claiming she used a different one in her official capacity as Secretary.
◦ Court’s Finding: This argument was implicitly rejected, as the ALJ concluded that Mr. Brown had successfully proven he submitted the request “to its Secretary, Ms. Wiley.”
3. Allegation of Falsified Evidence: Terravita contended that the forwarded e-mail evidence offered by Mr. Brown was falsified.
◦ Court’s Finding: The ALJ noted an inconsistency in Terravita’s position, stating, “Terravita did not contend that the written evidence of Mr. Brown’s August 5, 2016 records request, sent by e-mail to Ms. Wiley, was falsified.” This weakened the credibility of the falsification claim against the July 30 e-mail.
4. Non-Compliance with Internal Policy: Terravita argued that its own Rules, Policies, and Procedures required members to submit records requests to the General Manager and/or Director of Administration, not the Secretary.
◦ Court’s Finding: The decision focused entirely on the violation of the state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1805, indicating that the statutory obligation superseded the association’s internal procedural preferences.
Legal Framework and Conclusions of Law
• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) mandates that a homeowners’ association “shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination” of its financial and other records by a member.
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner was required to prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ determined that Mr. Brown successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that:
1. He submitted a request for records to Terravita’s Secretary via e-mail on July 30, 2016.
2. Terravita failed to fulfill this request within the statutory 10-business-day deadline.
• Final Judgment: The Tribunal concluded that “Terravita violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 33-1805.” It was also noted that Terravita did not contend that any of the statutory exceptions to disclosure, such as privileged communication or pending litigation, applied.
Final Order and Directives
The ALJ’s decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on July 11, 2017, making it a Final Order with the following mandates:
• Prevailing Party: Petitioner William M. Brown was deemed the prevailing party.
• Compliance with Request: Terravita was ordered to “comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding Petitioner’s request of Terravita’s records” within 10 days of the Order.
• Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Terravita was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 directly to him within thirty (30) days.
• Civil Penalty: The court determined that “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”
• Effective Date: The Order was made effective five (5) days from the date of its certification. The Final Order itself is effective immediately from the date of service, July 11, 2017.
Study Guide – 17F-H1716005-REL
Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716005-REL)
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing decision concerning William M. Brown’s records request to the Terravita Country Club. The case centers on the interpretation and application of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which governs a member’s right to access association records. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined and used within the legal documents.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing information exclusively from the provided case documents.
1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?
2. What specific failure by Terravita Country Club, Inc. led Mr. Brown to file his Petition for Hearing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?
3. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, what is the required timeframe for an association to fulfill a member’s request to examine its records?
4. What were the primary arguments Terravita presented to defend its failure to provide the requested records?
5. How did the Administrative Law Judge assess the credibility of the testimony provided by Mr. Brown and Terravita’s witness, Ms. Fran Wiley?
6. What piece of documentary evidence did Mr. Brown submit to prove he had sent the records request on July 30, 2016?
7. What is the standard of proof required in this hearing, and how is that standard defined in the decision?
8. What two specific actions did the final Recommended Order compel Terravita to take as a result of the ruling?
9. Why was Terravita’s argument that Mr. Brown failed to follow its internal rules for submitting records requests ultimately unsuccessful?
10. What was the role of the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate after the Administrative Law Judge issued her decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner was William M. Brown, and the Respondent was Terravita Country Club, Inc. At all times relevant to the matter, Mr. Brown was a member of the Terravita Country Club.
2. Mr. Brown filed the petition because Terravita failed to respond to his July 30, 2016, request for records within the 10-business-day timeframe mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This failure to provide timely access to the records was the central violation alleged.
3. A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) states that the association must fulfill a request for examination of its records within ten business days. If copies are requested, the association has ten business days to provide them and may charge up to fifteen cents per page.
4. Terravita argued that it never received the July 30, 2016, request from Mr. Brown. They also contended that his email evidence was falsified and that he failed to comply with their internal policy requiring such requests be sent to the General Manager or Director of Administration.
5. The Administrative Law Judge found Mr. Brown’s testimony to be credible. Conversely, the Judge found the testimony of Ms. Wiley, who testified on behalf of Terravita, to be unreliable.
6. Mr. Brown submitted an August 12, 2016, forwarded email that contained his original July 30, 2016, email to Ms. Wiley. This original email contained the records request dated July 29, 2016.
7. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The decision defines this as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as having “the most convincing force” or “superior evidentiary weight.”
8. The Recommended Order compelled Terravita to pay Mr. Brown’s $500 filing fee within thirty days of the order. It also ordered Terravita to comply with the records request and provide the documents within ten days of the order.
9. The argument was unsuccessful because the Judge concluded that Terravita violated the plain meaning of the state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1805. The ruling focused on this statutory violation, noting that Terravita did not contend that any of the law’s specific exceptions for withholding records applied.
10. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, was responsible for reviewing the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. The Commissioner accepted the decision and issued a Final Order, which made the Judge’s recommendations legally binding and enforceable.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based solely on the provided source documents.
1. Analyze Terravita’s defense strategy. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments regarding not receiving the email, the alleged falsification of evidence, and the club’s internal policies for records requests.
2. Explain the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. How did the Administrative Law Judge apply this standard to the conflicting testimonies of William Brown and Fran Wiley to reach her conclusion?
3. Discuss the significance of A.R.S. § 33-1805 in the context of planned communities. Based on the details in the case, why is a member’s right to access association records important, and what protections does this statute provide?
4. Trace the procedural path of this dispute from Mr. Brown’s initial records request to the Final Order. What roles did the Petitioner, the Respondent, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Department of Real Estate play in this process?
5. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision rested heavily on findings of credibility. Explore the factors detailed in the case documents that might have led the judge to find Mr. Brown’s testimony “credible” and Ms. Wiley’s “unreliable.”
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official (Velva Moses-Thompson) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, evaluates evidence and testimony, and issues a recommended decision based on the law.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
The Arizona Revised Statute at the heart of the case. It mandates that a planned community association must make all financial and other records reasonably available for a member’s examination within ten business days of a request.
Burden of Proof
The obligation to prove an assertion. The Petitioner (Mr. Brown) bore the burden of proving that the Respondent (Terravita) violated the statute.
Department of Real Estate
The Arizona state agency where Mr. Brown filed his Petition for Hearing. Its Commissioner (Judy Lowe) has the authority to accept an ALJ’s decision and issue a final, binding order.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent agency that conducts formal hearings for disputes concerning violations of planned community statutes, as authorized by A.R.S. § 41-1092.01.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this matter, the Petitioner was William M. Brown.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to prove his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”
Prevailing Party
The party who is successful and wins the legal dispute. The Administrative Law Judge’s order deemed the Petitioner, William M. Brown, to be the prevailing party.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this matter, the Respondent was Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Blog Post – 17F-H1716005-REL
He Sued His HOA Over an Unanswered Email—And Won. Here Are 4 Lessons from the Judge’s Ruling.
1. Introduction: The Black Hole of Bureaucracy
We’ve all been there. You draft a clear, important request, send it to a large organization, and wait. And wait. The silence that follows can feel like your message was sent into a black hole. This frustration is especially common for homeowners dealing with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA), where getting a straight answer or a timely response can seem impossible.
But what if being ignored is more than just frustrating? What if it’s a violation of the law? The case of William M. Brown versus the Terravita Country Club provides a powerful real-world example of one member who fought back against being ignored—and won. His persistence offers crucial lessons for any homeowner who has ever felt powerless against their association’s bureaucracy.
2. Takeaway 1: The “We Never Got the Email” Defense Isn’t Bulletproof
When faced with Mr. Brown’s petition, Terravita’s primary defense was simple: they claimed they never received his July 30, 2016, email requesting association records. They went even further, contending that the email evidence he provided was falsified.
This defense crumbled under scrutiny. Mr. Brown presented a forwarded email as evidence of his original request. In the end, the case came down to witness testimony, and the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion was direct and unambiguous. The judge made two critical findings on the credibility of the parties involved:
I find Mr. Brown’s testimony to be credible.
And regarding the testimony from Terravita’s representative, the Secretary Ms. Wiley:
I find Ms. Wiley’s testimony to be unreliable.
The judge’s conclusion was not arbitrary; it was based on a clear contradiction in the evidence. Ms. Wiley testified that she did not use the specific email address where Mr. Brown sent the request for association business. However, evidence presented to the court showed that just a few months prior, she had successfully received and processed two separate records requests sent to that very same email address, proving it was a valid and functioning channel for communication. This detail demonstrates how an individual’s careful documentation can expose an organization’s flawed defense.
3. Takeaway 2: State Law Overrules Internal Red Tape
Terravita offered a second line of defense: even if they had received the email, Mr. Brown hadn’t followed their internal “Rules, Policies and Procedures.” The association argued that members were required to submit records requests to the General Manager or Director of Administration, not the association’s Secretary, whom Mr. Brown had emailed.
This argument was deemed irrelevant by the judge. The decision hinged not on Terravita’s internal rules, but on the plain language of Arizona state law, A.R.S. § 33-1805. The statute simply requires the association to make records available within ten business days of a request; it does not specify which officer or employee must receive that request.
By failing to respond, Terravita violated the statute, regardless of its own procedural preferences. This is a critical reminder for all homeowners: your rights are often enshrined in state law, and those rights cannot be diminished or negated by an HOA’s internal bylaws or policies.
4. Takeaway 3: A Simple Request Has a Firm Deadline
The core violation in this case was a failure to meet a specific, legally mandated deadline. Under Arizona law A.R.S. § 33-1805, an association has ten business days to fulfill a member’s request for the examination of records.
The timeline of events was clear:
• Mr. Brown sent his records request via email on July 30, 2016.
• The judge found that “Terravita did not respond to Mr. Brown’s records request within 10 business days.”
Adding weight to this was the fact that the association had previously proven itself more than capable of handling requests sent from Mr. Brown’s email account. Earlier that year, another individual had successfully requested records through the same channel. In those instances, Terravita had been prompt, often acknowledging requests within a day or two and making records available well within the legal deadline. This history undermined any claim of inability to respond. The law’s ten-day deadline is not a vague guideline; it is a specific and enforceable protection for members’ right to information.
5. Takeaway 4: Persistence Can Literally Pay Off
After reviewing the evidence, the judge ruled that Mr. Brown was the “prevailing party.” This victory was not just symbolic; it came with concrete orders that held the association accountable.
The judge’s final decision included the following orders:
• Terravita was ordered to comply with the records request within 10 days.
• Terravita was ordered to pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00.
Mr. Brown’s persistence didn’t just get him the documents he was legally entitled to; it also resulted in the full reimbursement of his filing costs. This outcome serves as a powerful example that standing up for your rights as a homeowner is not always a futile or expensive endeavor. With proper documentation and an understanding of the law, a single member can hold their association accountable.
6. Conclusion: Your Rights Are Written in Law
While homeowners are obligated to follow their HOA’s rules, the association is equally obligated to follow state law. These laws provide clear rights and protections designed to ensure transparency and fairness. The case of William M. Brown is a testament to the power of a single, well-documented request and the importance of understanding the laws that govern your association.
The next time you feel ignored by a large organization, what’s the one simple step you can take to ensure your request is not only heard, but documented?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- William M. Brown (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself
- Anita Bell (records requester)
Requested records via Mr. Brown's e-mail account
Respondent Side
- Joshua Bolen (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Appeared for Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc.
- Fran Wiley (secretary/witness)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Terravita Secretary; testified on behalf of Terravita
- Tom Forbes (general manager)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.
- Cici Rausch (director of administration)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
- Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Signed the Final Order
- Abby Hansen (HOA coordinator)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed for rehearing requests and signed mailing notice
