Category Archives: HOA Cases

Mark Virden vs. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-27
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Mark Virden Counsel —
Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA Counsel Stewart F. Salwin

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.

Why this result: The decision to approve the tower was made by the Architectural Committee, which had independent authority under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811 regarding disclosure of compensation to the members acting as the board were found not to apply to the Committee's action.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors, Contracts, and Conflicts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 when it allowed the construction of an internet service tower after a board member's spouse paid the upfront fee in exchange for permanent free service (compensation). Petitioner argued this compensation required disclosure in an open meeting of the board before approval, which did not occur.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: conflict_of_interest, architectural_committee, board_authority, internet_tower, compensation, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:55 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:56 (736.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717027-REL


Briefing: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Case No. 17F-H1717027-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between homeowner Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the construction of an internet service tower on HOA common property. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona’s conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811), asserting that HOA officials received undisclosed compensation—lifelong free internet service—in exchange for approving the tower.

The case culminated in a definitive ruling against the Petitioner. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the ruling rested on the HOA’s unique governance structure. The decision to approve the tower was made not by the general “board of directors” (in this HOA, the members act as the board), but by the Architectural Committee, which was vested with independent authority to do so by the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs). Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the state law requiring conflict of interest disclosures before the board was not applicable to the committee’s action, rendering the Petitioner’s central argument invalid. The approval of the tower was deemed proper under the HOA’s governing rules.

Case Overview

Entity

Name / Description

Case Number

17F-H1717027-REL

Petitioner

Mark Virden

Respondent

Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Presiding ALJ

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Timeline of Key Events

• Circa 2017: The internet company AireBeam approached the HOA to install a service tower but did not secure enough subscribers to fund the project.

• Circa 2017: Lou Talarico, husband of an Architectural Committee member, offered to pay the tower’s upfront cost in exchange for free service for himself and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg. The Architectural Committee subsequently approved construction.

• March 23, 2017: Mark Virden filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a conflict of interest violation.

• June 7, 2017: A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• June 27, 2017: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• July 10, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The petition filed by Mark Virden centered on a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs contracts and conflicts of interest for HOA boards of directors.

Primary Allegation: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated state law by failing to disclose a conflict of interest related to the tower’s approval.

• The Conflict: Susan Talarico, a licensed realtor serving on the Architectural Committee, had a conflict because her husband, Lou Talarico, paid an upfront fee to the tower company. In exchange for this payment, the Talaricos and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg were to receive free internet service for as long as the tower remained operational.

• The Alleged Violation: According to the petition, this arrangement constituted compensation that should have been formally declared in an open meeting before any action was taken, as required by law. The petition states: “This law states that if a member of the board is receiving compensation, and has not declared that conflict in advance, then any contract entered into in violation of this law is void and unenforceable!”

• Perceived Inadequate Compensation: The Petitioner claimed the value of the free service far exceeded the cash contribution, stating, “…their contribution would only pay the equivalent of about 1-2 years of service for the two households.”

• Lack of Transparency: The petition alleges a refusal by the involved board members to provide details of their arrangement. When asked about the compensation, the Vice President reportedly stated, “it’s none of your business.”

Secondary Argument

The Petitioner alternatively argued that the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. Because the tower could provide service to individuals outside the HOA, it was not exclusively “for the benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, as stipulated by the governing documents.

Personal Grievance

The petition notes a direct personal impact on the Petitioner, stating that the tower was constructed within 150 feet of his front door and that he found it to be “a huge eye sore.”

Respondent’s Governance and Authority

The Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s defense rested on its specific governing documents and organizational structure, which were found to be central to the case’s outcome.

• Unconventional Board Structure: The HOA does not have a traditional, separate board of directors. Its Bylaws stipulate that “The affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

• Delegated Authority to Architectural Committee: The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants specific and independent power to its Architectural Committee. The CC&Rs state: “The Architectural Committee may permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

This structure meant that the authority to approve the tower resided with the committee, not the general membership acting as a board.

Adjudication and Final Ruling

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the final decision adopted by the Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner’s claims were ultimately rejected.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 27, 2017, denied the petition based on the following legal rationale:

• Architectural Committee’s Authority Was Dispositive: The ALJ found that the CC&Rs explicitly empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the communication tower. Crucially, the decision established that “Nothing in the CC&Rs requires that the Architectural Committee’s decision must be ratified by the members acting as a board.”

• Conflict of Interest Law Not Applicable: A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to actions and decisions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors.” Because the Architectural Committee acted under its own authority granted by the CC&Rs, its decision was not an action of the “board” as defined by the statute.

• Conclusion on Disclosure: The ALJ concluded that even if the free internet service was considered compensation (assuming arguendo), the arrangement “did not have to be disclosed to the members acting as a board.”

• Rejection of Secondary Argument: The ALJ dismissed the argument that the tower did not benefit the HOA, noting that the CC&R language “does not require that the satellite dish or other system may benefit exclusively all or portions of the HOA.”

The final conclusion of the tribunal was that “the Architectural Committee’s approval of the AireBeam tower was proper under Respondent’s governing documents.”

Final Order of the Department of Real Estate

On July 10, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that formally adopted the ALJ’s decision.

• Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was officially denied.

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties and represents a final administrative action.

• Avenues for Appeal: The Order noted that a party may request a rehearing within 30 days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, newly discovered evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious decision. Furthermore, a party may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.


Brian Sopatyk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Sopatyk Counsel Nathan Andrews
Respondent The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc. Counsel Bradley R. Jardine

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ decision, certified as the final administrative decision, dismissed the Petitioner's claim after rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The challenged $660 fee was determined to be a permissible working capital contribution under the CC&Rs, not a fee restricted by the statutory cap on resale disclosure services.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the fee in question was determined to be a working capital fee/assessment governed by the CC&Rs and ARS § 33-1242(A)(2), and not subject to the limitation set forth in ARS § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged excessive fee collection for resale disclosure/transfer services

Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging a $660 fee, which he argued exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure/transfer services. The Association argued the $660 fee was a working capital contribution mandated by CC&R section 8.13 and was mislabeled, and therefore not subject to the statutory limitations of § 33-1260.

Orders: Brian D. Sopatyk’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fee dispute, Working capital fee, Transfer fee, Resale disclosure, Statutory interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 531040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:17:41 (67.9 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 540004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:17:44 (154.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG


Briefing: Sopatyk v. Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and outcomes of an administrative legal case brought by petitioner Brian Sopatyk against The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. The core of the dispute was Mr. Sopatyk’s allegation that the Association charged a “transfer fee” of $660 upon the sale of a condominium unit, in violation of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260, which caps fees for resale disclosure services at an aggregate of $400.

Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) consistently ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition on both occasions. The central finding was that the petitioner failed to prove a statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association successfully argued that the disputed $660 charge was not a resale disclosure fee governed by A.R.S. § 33-1260, but rather a “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association admitted that this fee had been historically mislabeled as a “transfer fee,” an error it had since identified and corrected. The actual fee charged for resale disclosure documents was a separate, compliant $30 “statement fee.” The ALJ’s decision from the rehearing was certified as the final administrative decision in the matter on August 10, 2017.

Case Overview

Case Number

17F-H1716004-REL (Initial Hearing)
17F-H1716004-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Jurisdiction

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Core Allegation

Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260, which limits fees for resale disclosure services to a maximum of $400.

Final Outcome

Petition Dismissed. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a disclosure statement for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, showing a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

May 18, 2016

Prompted by Mr. Sopatyk, the Association’s Board discusses the fee structure. It concludes the $660 fee is a mislabeled “working capital fee” and not a statutory violation.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the violation.

November 14, 2016

The initial administrative hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate adopts the ALJ’s recommendation, issuing a Final Order to dismiss the petition.

Post-Dec. 2016

Mr. Sopatyk requests a rehearing of the matter.

June 9, 2017

The rehearing is conducted, again before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, once again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 10, 2017

With no modifying action from the Department of Real Estate, the ALJ’s June 26 decision is certified as the final administrative decision.

Core Dispute Analysis

The case centered on the interpretation and classification of two fees charged by the Association during the sale of Mr. Sopatyk’s condominium unit.

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Allegation of Violation: Mr. Sopatyk alleged that the Association charged a “transfer fee” of $660, which directly contravened the $400 statutory maximum established by A.R.S. § 33-1260 for services related to resale disclosure.

• Evidence Presented: The petitioner submitted a March 2, 2015 disclosure form from the Association listing both a “660transferfee”anda”30 statement fee.” A HUD-1 disclosure statement for the purchase was also entered, showing the $660 “Transfer Fee” was split, with $330 paid from the buyer’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the seller’s funds.

• Contradictory Testimony: The ALJ noted a discrepancy in the petitioner’s statements. The sworn petition stated the $660 fee was split between him and the seller, while his testimony at the rehearing claimed he “had in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price.” The ALJ decision stated, “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

• Requested Remedies: Mr. Sopatyk requested that the Association be ordered to comply with the statute, that refunds be paid to those who paid fees in excess of the statutory maximum, and that a civil penalty be imposed against the Association.

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Assoc.)

• Distinction Between Fees: The Association’s central argument was that two separate and legally distinct fees were assessed:

1. A $30 Resale Statement Fee: This was the charge for preparing documents pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260 and was well within the $400 limit.

2. A $660 Working Capital Fee: This fee was authorized under a separate provision, Section 8.13 of the Association’s CC&Rs, which mandates an assessment from each new owner equal to two monthly installments to fund the Association’s working capital (reserve) fund.

• “Mislabeled” Fee: The Association acknowledged that the $660 working capital fee was incorrectly labeled as a “transfer fee.” Association Manager Amy Telnes testified that she received erroneous information from the prior manager and had been using the wrong label.

• Board Action and Corrective Measures: The minutes from the May 18, 2016 Board meeting show that the Board, after reviewing a legal opinion, concluded the issue was one of “labeling, not violating the statute.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected into the Reserve Account. To prevent future confusion, the Board also voted to assess a single $400 transfer fee on all future transactions, with no other fees.

• Fund Allocation: Ms. Telnes testified that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund, consistent with its purpose as a working capital contribution, while the $30 fee was the charge pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260(C).

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Rulings

ALJ Thomas Shedden presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing, reaching the same conclusion in both instances.

Key Rulings and Legal Reasoning

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that Mr. Sopatyk, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving the alleged violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

• Core Finding: The evidence demonstrated that the Association charged two distinct fees. The $30 fee was for document preparation under A.R.S. § 33-1260, while the $660 fee was a working capital assessment authorized by CC&R Section 8.13. The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1260 was not applicable to the $660 fee.

• Conclusion on Violation: Based on the evidence, including the testimony of the Association manager and the board meeting minutes, the ALJ found that the $660 fee was mislabeled but was not collected for services related to resale disclosure. Therefore, Mr. Sopatyk did not meet his burden to show that the Association violated the statute.

• Rejection of Harm-Based Argument: The ALJ did not accept the Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Mr. Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400. The judge clarified that A.R.S. § 33-2199.01 “does not require this type of particularized harm, but rather applies to all statutory violations.”

• Dismissal of Petition: In both the November 29, 2016 decision and the June 26, 2017 decision, the order was to dismiss Mr. Sopatyk’s petition and deem the Association the prevailing party.

Final Disposition and Legal Status

The decision issued by ALJ Shedden on June 26, 2017, was transmitted to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Department had until August 1, 2017, to accept, reject, or modify the decision. As no action was taken by the deadline, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Certification of Decision of Administrative Law Judge on August 10, 2017. This certification established the ALJ’s decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Real Estate in the matter.

Key Legal Citations and Definitions

• A.R.S. § 33-1260 (Resale of Units; Information Required): This Arizona statute governs the information a condominium association must provide to a prospective purchaser. It explicitly limits the fees an association can charge for these services:

• CC&R Section 8.13 (Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund): This section of The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association’s governing documents provides the authority to collect a fee from new owners for a different purpose:

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof required for the petitioner to prevail, defined in the legal decisions as:






Study Guide – 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

1. Identify the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and state the core legal violation the petitioner alleged.

2. What specific fees were charged during the petitioner’s condominium purchase that became the central point of the dispute?

3. According to the Association, what was the true nature of the $660 fee, and how did it explain the “transfer fee” label on the disclosure documents?

4. What role did Amy Telnes, the Association manager, play in explaining the history of the disputed fee?

5. What actions did the Association’s Board take during its meeting on May 18, 2016, to address the petitioner’s concerns and correct its internal procedures?

6. Who held the burden of proof in this matter, and what was the legal standard required to meet that burden?

7. What was the official outcome of the initial administrative hearing held on November 14, 2016?

8. Why was a re-hearing conducted, and what was the final outcome of that hearing on June 9, 2017?

9. According to the re-hearing decision, there was a significant contradiction between the petitioner’s sworn petition and his later testimony. What was this contradiction?

10. What was the legal basis, according to the Association’s CC&Rs, for collecting the $660 working capital fee?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Brian Sopatyk, and the respondent was The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. Mr. Sopatyk alleged that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260 by charging a transfer fee in excess of the statutory maximum of $400.

2. The disputed fees were a $660 “transfer fee,” which was split between the buyer (Mr. Sopatyk) and the seller, and a separate $30 “statement fee” or “Resale Statement Fee.” The petitioner’s claim focused on the $660 fee being above the legal limit for resale disclosure services.

3. The Association argued the $660 fee was not a transfer fee for disclosure services but was a “working capital fee” authorized by its CC&Rs. It explained that the fee had been mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to an error passed down from a previous property manager.

4. Amy Telnes testified that when she became the Association manager, she was incorrectly told the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She further testified that the $660 was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund, and the actual fee charged for disclosure under the statute was the separate $30 statement fee.

5. At the May 18, 2016, meeting, the Board concluded it was not in violation of the law but that its fee labeling was confusing. The Board directed Amy Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all mislabeled fees into the Reserve Account and voted to assess a single, correctly labeled $400 transfer fee on all future transactions.

6. The petitioner, Brian Sopatyk, bore the burden of proof. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

7. Following the initial hearing, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden found that Mr. Sopatyk had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute. The judge ordered that Mr. Sopatyk’s petition be dismissed.

8. A re-hearing was conducted after Mr. Sopatyk requested one following the initial decision. The final outcome of the June 9, 2017, re-hearing was the same as the first: the Administrative Law Judge found the petitioner did not meet his burden of proof and ordered the petition to be dismissed.

9. In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated that the $660 transfer fee was split between him and the seller. However, during his testimony at the re-hearing, he stated that he had in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.

10. The legal basis was Section 8.13 of the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section, titled “Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund,” called for an assessment from each new owner of two monthly installments of the annual fee to be deposited into the working capital fund.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more synthesized understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, incorporating specific facts, legal arguments, and procedural details from the source documents.

1. Trace the complete timeline of the case, beginning with the filing of the petition. Include key dates of filings, hearings, decisions, and final certifications, and describe the significance of each event in the legal process.

2. Analyze the central legal argument of the Respondent, The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association. Explain how the distinction between a “transfer fee” under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260 and a “working capital fee” under the Association’s CC&Rs was crucial to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain why the petitioner, Brian Sopatyk, failed to meet this standard of proof in both the initial hearing and the re-hearing, citing specific evidence presented by the Association.

4. Evaluate the importance of the Association’s Board Meeting Minutes from May 18, 2016, as a piece of evidence. Detail the specific findings and resolutions from that meeting and explain how they were used to build the Association’s defense.

5. Examine the roles of the key individuals and entities in this administrative action. Describe the functions and contributions of Brian Sopatyk (Petitioner), Amy Telnes (Association Manager), Michael Cibellis (Association President), Thomas Shedden (Administrative Law Judge), and the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues a decision.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

The Arizona statute that requires a condominium association to provide certain disclosure documents to a prospective purchaser. It also limits the fee an association can charge for the preparation of these documents to an aggregate of four hundred dollars.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, the petitioner, Brian Sopatyk, bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. In this case, section 8.13 of the Association’s CC&Rs authorized the collection of a fee from new owners for a working capital fund.

Final Administrative Decision

The ultimate, legally binding decision in the administrative matter. In this case, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision became the final administrative decision after the Department of Real Estate did not act to accept, reject, or modify it within the statutory time limit.

HUD-1 Disclosure Statement

A document used in the petitioner’s property purchase that itemized all charges imposed upon a borrower and seller for a real estate transaction. It was used as evidence to show how the $660 “Transfer Fee” and $30 “Resale Statement Fee” were assessed and paid.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Brian Sopatyk was the petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined 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.”

Reserve Fund

An account maintained by the Condominium Association. The Association referred to its “working capital fund” as the Reserve Fund, into which the disputed $660 fees were deposited.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. was the respondent.

Statement Fee / Resale Statement Fee

A $30 fee charged by the Association for the preparation of disclosure documents. The Association argued this was the fee governed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260, which was compliant with the $400 statutory cap.

Transfer Fee

In the context of the petitioner’s allegation, a fee charged for resale disclosure services, limited to $400 by statute. In the context of the Association’s defense, this was the erroneous label applied to the working capital fee.

Working Capital Fee

A fee authorized by section 8.13 of the Association’s CC&Rs, assessed to each new owner to be deposited into the working capital fund (or Reserve Fund). The Association successfully argued that the disputed $660 fee was this type of fee, not one for resale disclosure.






Blog Post – 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG


How a $660 Fee Sparked a Legal Showdown: 5 Surprising Lessons from a Homeowner vs. HOA Dispute

We sign, we initial, we pay—assuming every line item on our closing documents is gospel. When buying a home in a condominium association, the stack of paperwork and list of fees can feel overwhelming. But what if one of those “standard” fees wasn’t standard at all?

For homeowner Brian Sopatyk, a single $660 charge from The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association wasn’t just a number; it was a thread he pulled that unraveled a surprising story of HOA governance, legal strategy, and the power of asking “why?” This post breaks down the five most impactful takeaways from a seemingly minor dispute that went all the way through a formal hearing and re-hearing.

1. A Simple Label Can Ignite a Legal Firestorm

A clerical error triggers a full-blown legal dispute.

The entire case hinged on a single, crucial mistake: the HOA mislabeled a “working capital fee” as a “transfer fee” on its disclosure forms.

Why was this one word so important? Because Mr. Sopatyk’s formal petition alleged that by charging a “$660 transfer fee,” the HOA violated Arizona statute 33-1260, which caps fees for resale disclosure services at a maximum of $400. On its face, the $660 charge looked like a clear violation of state law.

The Association’s manager, Amy Telnes, testified that when she took over her position, she was given erroneous information that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. As a result, the charge had been incorrectly labeled ever since. This simple administrative error was enough to trigger a formal petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, a full administrative hearing, and eventually, a re-hearing, proving how a small clerical mistake can escalate into a significant legal conflict.

2. In the Eyes of the Law, Substance Can Trump Form

Why the fee’s purpose mattered more than its name.

The Association’s core defense was that while the name of the fee was wrong, its purpose and authority were legitimate. The $660 charge, they argued, wasn’t for resale documents (the service capped by state law), but was a “working capital fee” authorized by an entirely different rule: the Association’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Specifically, Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs allowed for this assessment, with the funds designated for the Association’s reserve fund. This working capital fee, in contrast, was an assessment on the new owner as mandated by the CC&Rs to ensure the association’s financial health. The actual fee for the statutory disclosure documents was a separate, compliant $30 “Resale Statement Fee,” which was paid by the seller.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed. The fee’s underlying purpose and the HOA’s authority to collect it (its substance) were deemed more important than its incorrect name on the form (its form). This is a crucial lesson for any homeowner challenging an HOA: it’s not enough to find a mistake on a form. You must be prepared to argue against the underlying authority and purpose of the action itself.

3. You Can Lose the Battle but Win the War

How a dismissed case led to a major policy victory.

Perhaps the most counter-intuitive outcome is that although Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed, his actions were the direct catalyst for a significant and positive policy change by the HOA.

In a summary of the Association’s May 18, 2016, Board Meeting, which was entered as evidence, the judge noted that the Board reviewed the very issue Mr. Sopatyk had raised. Under the pressure of his legal challenge, they came to a powerful conclusion about their own system, determining it was “confusing and unfair.”

As a direct result of this internal review prompted by the dispute, the Board voted to simplify its process. It resolved to assess a single, clear transfer fee of $400 on all future transactions, eliminating the other confusing fees. This proves that even an unsuccessful legal challenge can be a powerful tool, forcing an organization to confront and correct its own problematic practices for the benefit of all future members.

4. The ‘Burden of Proof’ Is More Than Just a Phrase

What it really means to have to prove your case.

In both the original decision and the re-hearing, the judge repeatedly stated that Mr. Sopatyk, as the petitioner, bore the “burden of proof.” This legal standard was critical to the outcome. It meant he had to prove his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which the court documents defined as:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by 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.

In this case, it meant Mr. Sopatyk’s job was to prove that the $660 fee was, more likely than not, an illegal charge for resale documents. The HOA’s defense—that it was a legally separate “working capital fee” that was simply mislabeled—created enough doubt that he couldn’t clear this hurdle.

5. A Small Contradiction Can Damage Credibility

When every word you say (and write) is on the record.

A fascinating detail appeared in the re-hearing decision, highlighting how every word matters in a legal proceeding.

There was a discrepancy in Mr. Sopatyk’s statements. His sworn petition, filed on August 9, 2016, stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660.”

The judge noted this contradiction directly in footnote 3 of the re-hearing decision, stating: “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.” While not the deciding factor, this kind of inconsistency can subtly erode a petitioner’s standing. Remember the “burden of proof” from Takeaway 4? It requires convincing a judge to “incline a fair and impartial mind” to your side. Contradictions, even small ones, make that inclination much harder to achieve.

Conclusion: The Devil Is in the Details

This case is the perfect microcosm of community association disputes. It began with a clerical error (form), was adjudicated on intent (substance), was lost on a technicality (the burden of proof), yet resulted in a victory for transparency. Mr. Sopatyk may not have won his case, but he won a better system for his neighbors.

The ultimate lesson? In an HOA, the most powerful tool isn’t always a lawsuit—sometimes, it’s a magnifying glass. It leaves us with a thought-provoking question: When is it worth challenging the system for clarity and fairness, even if the outcome isn’t a clear ‘win’ on paper?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brian Sopatyk (petitioner)
    Represented himself at the initial hearing; sought rehearing
  • Nathan Andrews (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Jill M. Kennedy (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Judy Sopatyk (petitioner's wife)
    Co-purchaser of the condominium unit,
  • Chance Peterson (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Bradley R. Jardine (HOA attorney)
    Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston
  • Amy Telnes (property manager/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association manager who testified,
  • Michael Cibellis (Association president/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Testified at the rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Contact for requests for rehearing
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    OAH
    Signed the Certification of Decision,

Other Participants

  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Administrative staff for transmission/mailing,

Brian Sopatyk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Sopatyk Counsel Nathan Andrews
Respondent The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc. Counsel Bradley R. Jardine

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The ALJ found that the $660 charge was a working capital fee authorized by the CC&Rs and was not subject to the statutory fee cap for disclosure documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the fee in dispute was deemed a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, not a resale disclosure fee capped by A.R.S. § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory maximum transfer/disclosure fee

Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging a $660 transfer fee, exceeding the $400 statutory maximum for disclosure documents. The Association argued the $660 was a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, which had been mislabeled.

Orders: The petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request for orders requiring compliance, refunds, and civil penalties was denied. The Association was deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fees, transfer fee, working capital fund, statutory limit, mislabeled fee, ARS 33-1260
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 571793.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:50 (96.8 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 580965.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:51 (61.2 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593042.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:51 (100.9 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:52 (59.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Brian Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716004-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Brian Sopatyk’s allegation that the Respondent Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260 by charging a $660 “transfer fee” upon the sale of a condominium unit, which exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure services.

The Association’s defense centered on the argument that the $660 charge was not a disclosure fee but a separate “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association contended that this fee had been erroneously mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error inherited by its current manager. The actual statutory fee for disclosure documents, the Association argued, was a separate $30 charge paid by the seller.

After an initial hearing in November 2016 and a subsequent re-hearing in June 2017, the Administrative Law Judge consistently found that Mr. Sopatyk failed to prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence supported the Association’s claim of a mislabeled working capital fee. Consequently, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed on both occasions, and the Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdiction

Representation

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

On his own behalf (Initial Hearing); Nathan Andrews, Esq. & Jill Kennedy, Esq. (Re-Hearing)

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Bradley R. Jardine, Esq. (Both Hearings)

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Authority under A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, AZ

Core Allegation and Governing Statute

• Allegation: Brian Sopatyk alleged that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging fees exceeding the statutory maximum for resale disclosure services. Specifically, a $660 fee labeled as a “transfer fee” was charged when he purchased his unit.

• Petitioner’s Request: Mr. Sopatyk sought an order for the Association to comply with the statute, issue refunds to all who paid fees in excess of the maximum, and for a civil penalty to be imposed.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1260 stipulates that a condominium association “may charge the unit owner a fee of no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars to compensate the association for the costs incurred in the preparation of a statement or other documents furnished… for purposes of resale disclosure, lien estoppel and any other services related to the transfer or use of the property.” The statute explicitly forbids charging any other fees for these services except as authorized.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a “Disclosure Form” for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, listing a $660 transfer fee and a $30 statement fee.

May 18, 2016

The Association’s Board of Directors meets to address Mr. Sopatyk’s claim. They conclude the $660 fee was a mislabeled working capital fee and direct corrective accounting.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 14, 2016

The initial hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The ADRE Commissioner, Judy Lowe, adopts the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order dismissing the case.

February 7, 2017

A Notice of Re-Hearing is issued after Mr. Sopatyk requests one.

June 9, 2017

A re-hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 1, 2017

The deadline passes for the ADRE to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s re-hearing decision. No action is taken.

August 10, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings certifies the ALJ’s decision from the re-hearing as the final administrative decision in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Primary Argument: The Association’s own documents, specifically the Disclosure Form and the HUD-1 settlement statement, explicitly labeled the $660 charge as a “Transfer Fee.” This amount is a prima facie violation of the $400 statutory cap in A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Evidence Presented:

◦ March 2, 2015 Disclosure Form: Showed a required payment of a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

◦ HUD-1 Settlement Statement: Documented that the $660 Transfer Fee was paid to the Association, with $330 paid from the Borrower’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the Seller’s funds. It also showed the Seller paid a separate $30 Resale Statement Fee.

• Contradictory Testimony: In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the re-hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.” The ALJ noted this discrepancy, stating “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association)

• Primary Argument: The $660 fee was not for resale disclosure services but was a working capital fee authorized by the Association’s CC&Rs. The “transfer fee” label was a historical clerical error that the Board had since identified and corrected.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ CC&R Section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”): This provision authorizes the Association to assess each new owner a fee of “at least twice the average monthly assessment” to be deposited into the working capital fund (referred to as the Reserve Fund). The monthly assessment was $328.83, making the $660 fee consistent with this rule.

◦ Testimony of Amy Telnes (Association Manager): Ms. Telnes testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly informed that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She affirmed that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund and that the separate $30 fee was the one charged pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260.

◦ May 18, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes: These minutes, entered into evidence, documented the Board’s conclusion that it was collecting a working capital contribution but “erroneously calling it a transfer fee.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected after October 1, 2013, to the Reserve Account. The minutes also show the Board voted to change its fee structure moving forward to a single $400 fee to avoid future confusion.

——————————————————————————–

Judicial Findings and Final Disposition

Standard and Burden of Proof

Across both hearings, the ALJ established that the standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” The burden of proof rested entirely on the petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, to demonstrate that a violation had occurred.

Initial Hearing Decision (November 29, 2016)

• Findings of Fact: The ALJ found that the Association was charging a $660 working capital fee in accordance with its CC&Rs but had been mislabeling it. It was also charging a separate $30 document preparation fee.

• Conclusion of Law: Mr. Sopatyk did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Order: The petition was dismissed, and the decision was adopted as final by the ADRE Commissioner on December 13, 2016.

Re-Hearing Decision (June 26, 2017)

• Findings of Fact: The re-hearing produced more detailed findings but led to the same conclusion. The ALJ found that the Association had authority under its CC&Rs to collect the $660 working capital fee and that the statutory disclosure statute did not apply to this charge. The fee applicable to the statute was the $30 charge paid by the seller.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ reiterated that Mr. Sopatyk failed to meet his burden of proof. The Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400 was deemed “not persuasive,” as the statute applies to all violations regardless of particularized harm.

• Order: The petition was again ordered to be dismissed.

Final Administrative Disposition

The ADRE took no action to modify or reject the ALJ’s re-hearing decision by the statutory deadline of August 1, 2017. As a result, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the June 26, 2017 decision as the final administrative decision on August 10, 2017, concluding the matter in favor of the Respondent Association.


Brian Sopatyk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Sopatyk Counsel Nathan Andrews
Respondent The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc. Counsel Bradley R. Jardine

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The ALJ found that the $660 charge was a working capital fee authorized by the CC&Rs and was not subject to the statutory fee cap for disclosure documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the fee in dispute was deemed a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, not a resale disclosure fee capped by A.R.S. § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory maximum transfer/disclosure fee

Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging a $660 transfer fee, exceeding the $400 statutory maximum for disclosure documents. The Association argued the $660 was a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, which had been mislabeled.

Orders: The petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request for orders requiring compliance, refunds, and civil penalties was denied. The Association was deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fees, transfer fee, working capital fund, statutory limit, mislabeled fee, ARS 33-1260
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 571793.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:43 (96.8 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 580965.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:43 (61.2 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593042.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:44 (100.9 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:44 (59.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Brian Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716004-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Brian Sopatyk’s allegation that the Respondent Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260 by charging a $660 “transfer fee” upon the sale of a condominium unit, which exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure services.

The Association’s defense centered on the argument that the $660 charge was not a disclosure fee but a separate “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association contended that this fee had been erroneously mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error inherited by its current manager. The actual statutory fee for disclosure documents, the Association argued, was a separate $30 charge paid by the seller.

After an initial hearing in November 2016 and a subsequent re-hearing in June 2017, the Administrative Law Judge consistently found that Mr. Sopatyk failed to prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence supported the Association’s claim of a mislabeled working capital fee. Consequently, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed on both occasions, and the Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdiction

Representation

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

On his own behalf (Initial Hearing); Nathan Andrews, Esq. & Jill Kennedy, Esq. (Re-Hearing)

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Bradley R. Jardine, Esq. (Both Hearings)

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Authority under A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, AZ

Core Allegation and Governing Statute

• Allegation: Brian Sopatyk alleged that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging fees exceeding the statutory maximum for resale disclosure services. Specifically, a $660 fee labeled as a “transfer fee” was charged when he purchased his unit.

• Petitioner’s Request: Mr. Sopatyk sought an order for the Association to comply with the statute, issue refunds to all who paid fees in excess of the maximum, and for a civil penalty to be imposed.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1260 stipulates that a condominium association “may charge the unit owner a fee of no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars to compensate the association for the costs incurred in the preparation of a statement or other documents furnished… for purposes of resale disclosure, lien estoppel and any other services related to the transfer or use of the property.” The statute explicitly forbids charging any other fees for these services except as authorized.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a “Disclosure Form” for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, listing a $660 transfer fee and a $30 statement fee.

May 18, 2016

The Association’s Board of Directors meets to address Mr. Sopatyk’s claim. They conclude the $660 fee was a mislabeled working capital fee and direct corrective accounting.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 14, 2016

The initial hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The ADRE Commissioner, Judy Lowe, adopts the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order dismissing the case.

February 7, 2017

A Notice of Re-Hearing is issued after Mr. Sopatyk requests one.

June 9, 2017

A re-hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 1, 2017

The deadline passes for the ADRE to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s re-hearing decision. No action is taken.

August 10, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings certifies the ALJ’s decision from the re-hearing as the final administrative decision in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Primary Argument: The Association’s own documents, specifically the Disclosure Form and the HUD-1 settlement statement, explicitly labeled the $660 charge as a “Transfer Fee.” This amount is a prima facie violation of the $400 statutory cap in A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Evidence Presented:

◦ March 2, 2015 Disclosure Form: Showed a required payment of a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

◦ HUD-1 Settlement Statement: Documented that the $660 Transfer Fee was paid to the Association, with $330 paid from the Borrower’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the Seller’s funds. It also showed the Seller paid a separate $30 Resale Statement Fee.

• Contradictory Testimony: In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the re-hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.” The ALJ noted this discrepancy, stating “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association)

• Primary Argument: The $660 fee was not for resale disclosure services but was a working capital fee authorized by the Association’s CC&Rs. The “transfer fee” label was a historical clerical error that the Board had since identified and corrected.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ CC&R Section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”): This provision authorizes the Association to assess each new owner a fee of “at least twice the average monthly assessment” to be deposited into the working capital fund (referred to as the Reserve Fund). The monthly assessment was $328.83, making the $660 fee consistent with this rule.

◦ Testimony of Amy Telnes (Association Manager): Ms. Telnes testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly informed that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She affirmed that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund and that the separate $30 fee was the one charged pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260.

◦ May 18, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes: These minutes, entered into evidence, documented the Board’s conclusion that it was collecting a working capital contribution but “erroneously calling it a transfer fee.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected after October 1, 2013, to the Reserve Account. The minutes also show the Board voted to change its fee structure moving forward to a single $400 fee to avoid future confusion.

——————————————————————————–

Judicial Findings and Final Disposition

Standard and Burden of Proof

Across both hearings, the ALJ established that the standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” The burden of proof rested entirely on the petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, to demonstrate that a violation had occurred.

Initial Hearing Decision (November 29, 2016)

• Findings of Fact: The ALJ found that the Association was charging a $660 working capital fee in accordance with its CC&Rs but had been mislabeling it. It was also charging a separate $30 document preparation fee.

• Conclusion of Law: Mr. Sopatyk did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Order: The petition was dismissed, and the decision was adopted as final by the ADRE Commissioner on December 13, 2016.

Re-Hearing Decision (June 26, 2017)

• Findings of Fact: The re-hearing produced more detailed findings but led to the same conclusion. The ALJ found that the Association had authority under its CC&Rs to collect the $660 working capital fee and that the statutory disclosure statute did not apply to this charge. The fee applicable to the statute was the $30 charge paid by the seller.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ reiterated that Mr. Sopatyk failed to meet his burden of proof. The Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400 was deemed “not persuasive,” as the statute applies to all violations regardless of particularized harm.

• Order: The petition was again ordered to be dismissed.

Final Administrative Disposition

The ADRE took no action to modify or reject the ALJ’s re-hearing decision by the statutory deadline of August 1, 2017. As a result, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the June 26, 2017 decision as the final administrative decision on August 10, 2017, concluding the matter in favor of the Respondent Association.


Brian Sopatyk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Sopatyk Counsel Nathan Andrews
Respondent The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc. Counsel Bradley R. Jardine

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ decision, certified as the final administrative decision, dismissed the Petitioner's claim after rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The challenged $660 fee was determined to be a permissible working capital contribution under the CC&Rs, not a fee restricted by the statutory cap on resale disclosure services.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the fee in question was determined to be a working capital fee/assessment governed by the CC&Rs and ARS § 33-1242(A)(2), and not subject to the limitation set forth in ARS § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged excessive fee collection for resale disclosure/transfer services

Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging a $660 fee, which he argued exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure/transfer services. The Association argued the $660 fee was a working capital contribution mandated by CC&R section 8.13 and was mislabeled, and therefore not subject to the statutory limitations of § 33-1260.

Orders: Brian D. Sopatyk’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fee dispute, Working capital fee, Transfer fee, Resale disclosure, Statutory interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 531040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:41:29 (67.9 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 540004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:41:30 (154.0 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 571793.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:30:59 (96.8 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 580965.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:30:59 (61.2 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593042.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:30:59 (100.9 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:00 (59.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG


Briefing: Sopatyk v. Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and outcomes of an administrative legal case brought by petitioner Brian Sopatyk against The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. The core of the dispute was Mr. Sopatyk’s allegation that the Association charged a “transfer fee” of $660 upon the sale of a condominium unit, in violation of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260, which caps fees for resale disclosure services at an aggregate of $400.

Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) consistently ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition on both occasions. The central finding was that the petitioner failed to prove a statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association successfully argued that the disputed $660 charge was not a resale disclosure fee governed by A.R.S. § 33-1260, but rather a “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association admitted that this fee had been historically mislabeled as a “transfer fee,” an error it had since identified and corrected. The actual fee charged for resale disclosure documents was a separate, compliant $30 “statement fee.” The ALJ’s decision from the rehearing was certified as the final administrative decision in the matter on August 10, 2017.

Case Overview

Case Number

17F-H1716004-REL (Initial Hearing)
17F-H1716004-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Jurisdiction

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Core Allegation

Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260, which limits fees for resale disclosure services to a maximum of $400.

Final Outcome

Petition Dismissed. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a disclosure statement for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, showing a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

May 18, 2016

Prompted by Mr. Sopatyk, the Association’s Board discusses the fee structure. It concludes the $660 fee is a mislabeled “working capital fee” and not a statutory violation.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the violation.

November 14, 2016

The initial administrative hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate adopts the ALJ’s recommendation, issuing a Final Order to dismiss the petition.

Post-Dec. 2016

Mr. Sopatyk requests a rehearing of the matter.

June 9, 2017

The rehearing is conducted, again before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, once again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 10, 2017

With no modifying action from the Department of Real Estate, the ALJ’s June 26 decision is certified as the final administrative decision.

Core Dispute Analysis

The case centered on the interpretation and classification of two fees charged by the Association during the sale of Mr. Sopatyk’s condominium unit.

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Allegation of Violation: Mr. Sopatyk alleged that the Association charged a “transfer fee” of $660, which directly contravened the $400 statutory maximum established by A.R.S. § 33-1260 for services related to resale disclosure.

• Evidence Presented: The petitioner submitted a March 2, 2015 disclosure form from the Association listing both a “660transferfee”anda”30 statement fee.” A HUD-1 disclosure statement for the purchase was also entered, showing the $660 “Transfer Fee” was split, with $330 paid from the buyer’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the seller’s funds.

• Contradictory Testimony: The ALJ noted a discrepancy in the petitioner’s statements. The sworn petition stated the $660 fee was split between him and the seller, while his testimony at the rehearing claimed he “had in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price.” The ALJ decision stated, “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

• Requested Remedies: Mr. Sopatyk requested that the Association be ordered to comply with the statute, that refunds be paid to those who paid fees in excess of the statutory maximum, and that a civil penalty be imposed against the Association.

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Assoc.)

• Distinction Between Fees: The Association’s central argument was that two separate and legally distinct fees were assessed:

1. A $30 Resale Statement Fee: This was the charge for preparing documents pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260 and was well within the $400 limit.

2. A $660 Working Capital Fee: This fee was authorized under a separate provision, Section 8.13 of the Association’s CC&Rs, which mandates an assessment from each new owner equal to two monthly installments to fund the Association’s working capital (reserve) fund.

• “Mislabeled” Fee: The Association acknowledged that the $660 working capital fee was incorrectly labeled as a “transfer fee.” Association Manager Amy Telnes testified that she received erroneous information from the prior manager and had been using the wrong label.

• Board Action and Corrective Measures: The minutes from the May 18, 2016 Board meeting show that the Board, after reviewing a legal opinion, concluded the issue was one of “labeling, not violating the statute.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected into the Reserve Account. To prevent future confusion, the Board also voted to assess a single $400 transfer fee on all future transactions, with no other fees.

• Fund Allocation: Ms. Telnes testified that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund, consistent with its purpose as a working capital contribution, while the $30 fee was the charge pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260(C).

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Rulings

ALJ Thomas Shedden presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing, reaching the same conclusion in both instances.

Key Rulings and Legal Reasoning

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that Mr. Sopatyk, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving the alleged violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

• Core Finding: The evidence demonstrated that the Association charged two distinct fees. The $30 fee was for document preparation under A.R.S. § 33-1260, while the $660 fee was a working capital assessment authorized by CC&R Section 8.13. The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1260 was not applicable to the $660 fee.

• Conclusion on Violation: Based on the evidence, including the testimony of the Association manager and the board meeting minutes, the ALJ found that the $660 fee was mislabeled but was not collected for services related to resale disclosure. Therefore, Mr. Sopatyk did not meet his burden to show that the Association violated the statute.

• Rejection of Harm-Based Argument: The ALJ did not accept the Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Mr. Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400. The judge clarified that A.R.S. § 33-2199.01 “does not require this type of particularized harm, but rather applies to all statutory violations.”

• Dismissal of Petition: In both the November 29, 2016 decision and the June 26, 2017 decision, the order was to dismiss Mr. Sopatyk’s petition and deem the Association the prevailing party.

Final Disposition and Legal Status

The decision issued by ALJ Shedden on June 26, 2017, was transmitted to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Department had until August 1, 2017, to accept, reject, or modify the decision. As no action was taken by the deadline, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Certification of Decision of Administrative Law Judge on August 10, 2017. This certification established the ALJ’s decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Real Estate in the matter.

Key Legal Citations and Definitions

• A.R.S. § 33-1260 (Resale of Units; Information Required): This Arizona statute governs the information a condominium association must provide to a prospective purchaser. It explicitly limits the fees an association can charge for these services:

• CC&R Section 8.13 (Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund): This section of The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association’s governing documents provides the authority to collect a fee from new owners for a different purpose:

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof required for the petitioner to prevail, defined in the legal decisions as:






Study Guide – 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

1. Identify the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and state the core legal violation the petitioner alleged.

2. What specific fees were charged during the petitioner’s condominium purchase that became the central point of the dispute?

3. According to the Association, what was the true nature of the $660 fee, and how did it explain the “transfer fee” label on the disclosure documents?

4. What role did Amy Telnes, the Association manager, play in explaining the history of the disputed fee?

5. What actions did the Association’s Board take during its meeting on May 18, 2016, to address the petitioner’s concerns and correct its internal procedures?

6. Who held the burden of proof in this matter, and what was the legal standard required to meet that burden?

7. What was the official outcome of the initial administrative hearing held on November 14, 2016?

8. Why was a re-hearing conducted, and what was the final outcome of that hearing on June 9, 2017?

9. According to the re-hearing decision, there was a significant contradiction between the petitioner’s sworn petition and his later testimony. What was this contradiction?

10. What was the legal basis, according to the Association’s CC&Rs, for collecting the $660 working capital fee?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Brian Sopatyk, and the respondent was The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. Mr. Sopatyk alleged that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260 by charging a transfer fee in excess of the statutory maximum of $400.

2. The disputed fees were a $660 “transfer fee,” which was split between the buyer (Mr. Sopatyk) and the seller, and a separate $30 “statement fee” or “Resale Statement Fee.” The petitioner’s claim focused on the $660 fee being above the legal limit for resale disclosure services.

3. The Association argued the $660 fee was not a transfer fee for disclosure services but was a “working capital fee” authorized by its CC&Rs. It explained that the fee had been mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to an error passed down from a previous property manager.

4. Amy Telnes testified that when she became the Association manager, she was incorrectly told the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She further testified that the $660 was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund, and the actual fee charged for disclosure under the statute was the separate $30 statement fee.

5. At the May 18, 2016, meeting, the Board concluded it was not in violation of the law but that its fee labeling was confusing. The Board directed Amy Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all mislabeled fees into the Reserve Account and voted to assess a single, correctly labeled $400 transfer fee on all future transactions.

6. The petitioner, Brian Sopatyk, bore the burden of proof. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

7. Following the initial hearing, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden found that Mr. Sopatyk had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute. The judge ordered that Mr. Sopatyk’s petition be dismissed.

8. A re-hearing was conducted after Mr. Sopatyk requested one following the initial decision. The final outcome of the June 9, 2017, re-hearing was the same as the first: the Administrative Law Judge found the petitioner did not meet his burden of proof and ordered the petition to be dismissed.

9. In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated that the $660 transfer fee was split between him and the seller. However, during his testimony at the re-hearing, he stated that he had in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.

10. The legal basis was Section 8.13 of the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section, titled “Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund,” called for an assessment from each new owner of two monthly installments of the annual fee to be deposited into the working capital fund.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more synthesized understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, incorporating specific facts, legal arguments, and procedural details from the source documents.

1. Trace the complete timeline of the case, beginning with the filing of the petition. Include key dates of filings, hearings, decisions, and final certifications, and describe the significance of each event in the legal process.

2. Analyze the central legal argument of the Respondent, The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association. Explain how the distinction between a “transfer fee” under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260 and a “working capital fee” under the Association’s CC&Rs was crucial to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain why the petitioner, Brian Sopatyk, failed to meet this standard of proof in both the initial hearing and the re-hearing, citing specific evidence presented by the Association.

4. Evaluate the importance of the Association’s Board Meeting Minutes from May 18, 2016, as a piece of evidence. Detail the specific findings and resolutions from that meeting and explain how they were used to build the Association’s defense.

5. Examine the roles of the key individuals and entities in this administrative action. Describe the functions and contributions of Brian Sopatyk (Petitioner), Amy Telnes (Association Manager), Michael Cibellis (Association President), Thomas Shedden (Administrative Law Judge), and the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues a decision.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

The Arizona statute that requires a condominium association to provide certain disclosure documents to a prospective purchaser. It also limits the fee an association can charge for the preparation of these documents to an aggregate of four hundred dollars.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, the petitioner, Brian Sopatyk, bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. In this case, section 8.13 of the Association’s CC&Rs authorized the collection of a fee from new owners for a working capital fund.

Final Administrative Decision

The ultimate, legally binding decision in the administrative matter. In this case, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision became the final administrative decision after the Department of Real Estate did not act to accept, reject, or modify it within the statutory time limit.

HUD-1 Disclosure Statement

A document used in the petitioner’s property purchase that itemized all charges imposed upon a borrower and seller for a real estate transaction. It was used as evidence to show how the $660 “Transfer Fee” and $30 “Resale Statement Fee” were assessed and paid.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Brian Sopatyk was the petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined 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.”

Reserve Fund

An account maintained by the Condominium Association. The Association referred to its “working capital fund” as the Reserve Fund, into which the disputed $660 fees were deposited.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. was the respondent.

Statement Fee / Resale Statement Fee

A $30 fee charged by the Association for the preparation of disclosure documents. The Association argued this was the fee governed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260, which was compliant with the $400 statutory cap.

Transfer Fee

In the context of the petitioner’s allegation, a fee charged for resale disclosure services, limited to $400 by statute. In the context of the Association’s defense, this was the erroneous label applied to the working capital fee.

Working Capital Fee

A fee authorized by section 8.13 of the Association’s CC&Rs, assessed to each new owner to be deposited into the working capital fund (or Reserve Fund). The Association successfully argued that the disputed $660 fee was this type of fee, not one for resale disclosure.






Blog Post – 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG


How a $660 Fee Sparked a Legal Showdown: 5 Surprising Lessons from a Homeowner vs. HOA Dispute

We sign, we initial, we pay—assuming every line item on our closing documents is gospel. When buying a home in a condominium association, the stack of paperwork and list of fees can feel overwhelming. But what if one of those “standard” fees wasn’t standard at all?

For homeowner Brian Sopatyk, a single $660 charge from The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association wasn’t just a number; it was a thread he pulled that unraveled a surprising story of HOA governance, legal strategy, and the power of asking “why?” This post breaks down the five most impactful takeaways from a seemingly minor dispute that went all the way through a formal hearing and re-hearing.

1. A Simple Label Can Ignite a Legal Firestorm

A clerical error triggers a full-blown legal dispute.

The entire case hinged on a single, crucial mistake: the HOA mislabeled a “working capital fee” as a “transfer fee” on its disclosure forms.

Why was this one word so important? Because Mr. Sopatyk’s formal petition alleged that by charging a “$660 transfer fee,” the HOA violated Arizona statute 33-1260, which caps fees for resale disclosure services at a maximum of $400. On its face, the $660 charge looked like a clear violation of state law.

The Association’s manager, Amy Telnes, testified that when she took over her position, she was given erroneous information that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. As a result, the charge had been incorrectly labeled ever since. This simple administrative error was enough to trigger a formal petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, a full administrative hearing, and eventually, a re-hearing, proving how a small clerical mistake can escalate into a significant legal conflict.

2. In the Eyes of the Law, Substance Can Trump Form

Why the fee’s purpose mattered more than its name.

The Association’s core defense was that while the name of the fee was wrong, its purpose and authority were legitimate. The $660 charge, they argued, wasn’t for resale documents (the service capped by state law), but was a “working capital fee” authorized by an entirely different rule: the Association’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Specifically, Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs allowed for this assessment, with the funds designated for the Association’s reserve fund. This working capital fee, in contrast, was an assessment on the new owner as mandated by the CC&Rs to ensure the association’s financial health. The actual fee for the statutory disclosure documents was a separate, compliant $30 “Resale Statement Fee,” which was paid by the seller.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed. The fee’s underlying purpose and the HOA’s authority to collect it (its substance) were deemed more important than its incorrect name on the form (its form). This is a crucial lesson for any homeowner challenging an HOA: it’s not enough to find a mistake on a form. You must be prepared to argue against the underlying authority and purpose of the action itself.

3. You Can Lose the Battle but Win the War

How a dismissed case led to a major policy victory.

Perhaps the most counter-intuitive outcome is that although Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed, his actions were the direct catalyst for a significant and positive policy change by the HOA.

In a summary of the Association’s May 18, 2016, Board Meeting, which was entered as evidence, the judge noted that the Board reviewed the very issue Mr. Sopatyk had raised. Under the pressure of his legal challenge, they came to a powerful conclusion about their own system, determining it was “confusing and unfair.”

As a direct result of this internal review prompted by the dispute, the Board voted to simplify its process. It resolved to assess a single, clear transfer fee of $400 on all future transactions, eliminating the other confusing fees. This proves that even an unsuccessful legal challenge can be a powerful tool, forcing an organization to confront and correct its own problematic practices for the benefit of all future members.

4. The ‘Burden of Proof’ Is More Than Just a Phrase

What it really means to have to prove your case.

In both the original decision and the re-hearing, the judge repeatedly stated that Mr. Sopatyk, as the petitioner, bore the “burden of proof.” This legal standard was critical to the outcome. It meant he had to prove his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which the court documents defined as:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by 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.

In this case, it meant Mr. Sopatyk’s job was to prove that the $660 fee was, more likely than not, an illegal charge for resale documents. The HOA’s defense—that it was a legally separate “working capital fee” that was simply mislabeled—created enough doubt that he couldn’t clear this hurdle.

5. A Small Contradiction Can Damage Credibility

When every word you say (and write) is on the record.

A fascinating detail appeared in the re-hearing decision, highlighting how every word matters in a legal proceeding.

There was a discrepancy in Mr. Sopatyk’s statements. His sworn petition, filed on August 9, 2016, stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660.”

The judge noted this contradiction directly in footnote 3 of the re-hearing decision, stating: “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.” While not the deciding factor, this kind of inconsistency can subtly erode a petitioner’s standing. Remember the “burden of proof” from Takeaway 4? It requires convincing a judge to “incline a fair and impartial mind” to your side. Contradictions, even small ones, make that inclination much harder to achieve.

Conclusion: The Devil Is in the Details

This case is the perfect microcosm of community association disputes. It began with a clerical error (form), was adjudicated on intent (substance), was lost on a technicality (the burden of proof), yet resulted in a victory for transparency. Mr. Sopatyk may not have won his case, but he won a better system for his neighbors.

The ultimate lesson? In an HOA, the most powerful tool isn’t always a lawsuit—sometimes, it’s a magnifying glass. It leaves us with a thought-provoking question: When is it worth challenging the system for clarity and fairness, even if the outcome isn’t a clear ‘win’ on paper?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brian Sopatyk (petitioner)
    Represented himself at the initial hearing; sought rehearing
  • Nathan Andrews (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Jill M. Kennedy (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Judy Sopatyk (petitioner's wife)
    Co-purchaser of the condominium unit,
  • Chance Peterson (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Bradley R. Jardine (HOA attorney)
    Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston
  • Amy Telnes (property manager/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association manager who testified,
  • Michael Cibellis (Association president/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Testified at the rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Contact for requests for rehearing
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    OAH
    Signed the Certification of Decision,

Other Participants

  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Administrative staff for transmission/mailing,

Tom Pyron vs Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717026-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-19
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Pyron Counsel —
Respondent Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws, Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA correctly identified only one Board position (the one-year term) was up for election in 2017 based on the Bylaws' staggered term provisions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over the number of Board of Director positions available for the 2017 election.

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated Bylaws by stating only one Board position was up for election for a one-year term in 2017, when Petitioner contended two positions (one-year and two-year terms) were open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • R4-28-1310

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Bylaw Violation, Board Term, Staggered Terms, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • R4-28-1310

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 570560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:37 (120.2 KB)

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 576045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:38 (959.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717026-REL


Briefing Document: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between homeowner Tom Pyron (“Petitioner”) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The central issue was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board of Directors position was open for election in 2017, whereas the Petitioner contended two positions should have been open.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the association’s bylaws, specifically Article III, § 3.02, which governs the staggered terms of office for the three-member board. The ALJ found that a board member’s personal understanding of their term length could not amend the plain language of the bylaws. Based on the bylaw’s schedule for staggered terms, the judge concluded that a pivotal 2015 election could only have filled a one-year and a three-year term, which sequentially led to only one position being open in 2017. The Petitioner’s petition was denied, and this decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Pyron, a condominium owner and member of the Respondent association.

◦ Respondent: Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc., represented by B. Austin Baillio, Esq., of Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

• Case Numbers: 17F-H1717026-REL; HO 17-17/026

• Adjudicator: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Final Order By: Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Hearing Date: June 12, 2017.

• Final Order Date: July 12, 2017.

The case was initiated when Tom Pyron filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on March 16, 2017, alleging a violation of the homeowners’ association’s bylaws concerning the 2017 Board of Directors election.

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

The Petitioner’s claim centered on the belief that the Respondent improperly noticed the number of available Board positions for the 2017 election.

• Core Allegation: The Respondent violated its Bylaws (Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06) by informing members that only one Board position for a one-year term was available for the 2017 election.

• Petitioner’s Contention: Two positions—one for a one-year term and one for a two-year term—should have been up for election in 2017.

• Basis of Argument: The Petitioner’s argument was built upon the 2015 election of Barbara Ahlstrand. He contended, supported by Ahlstrand’s testimony, that she was elected to a two-year term. Following this logic:

1. Ahlstrand’s term would run from 2015 to 2017.

2. When she resigned in August 2015, her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was appointed to serve the remainder of that two-year term, which would expire in 2017.

3. Therefore, Jeff Oursland should not have been on the ballot for the 2016 election, and his two-year position should have been one of the two seats open for election in 2017.

III. Respondent’s Position and Pre-Hearing Actions

The Respondent denied any violation of its bylaws and maintained that its actions were consistent with the governing documents.

• Pre-Hearing Resolution Attempts: In response to the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued election ballots. The Respondent also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution, an offer the Petitioner did not accept.

• Core Defense: The Respondent’s position was based on a direct interpretation of Bylaw § 3.02, which dictates the schedule of staggered terms.

• Basis of Argument: The Respondent argued that according to the bylaw’s prescribed cycle, only the one-year and three-year positions were up for election in 2015.

1. As it was agreed that Sandra Singer received the most votes and was elected to the three-year term, Barbara Ahlstrand must have been elected to the available one-year term.

2. Therefore, Ahlstrand’s term was set to expire in 2016.

3. Her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was correctly appointed to serve only until the 2016 election.

4. Consequently, Oursland was properly elected to a new two-year term in 2016 (expiring in 2018), and the only seat open in 2017 was the one-year term completed by Steve Molever.

IV. Chronology of Board Elections and Appointments

The dispute originated from differing interpretations of election outcomes from 2014 onward. The Board of Directors has consistently been comprised of three members.

Election Year

Agreed Facts & Election Results

Petitioner’s Interpretation/Contention

Respondent’s Interpretation/Position

Anne Fugate elected to a 3-year term.
John Haunschild elected to a 2-year term.
Ron Cadaret elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Ron Cadaret re-elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Minutes state “the election of Sandra Singer was unanimously passed by acclamation.”

Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term. No other officers were elected.

Based on bylaw § 3.02 and the 2015 Board composition, John Haunschild must have been re-elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2016), and Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term (expiring 2015).

Sandra Singer and Barbara Ahlstrand were elected. Singer received the most votes and was elected to a 3-year term. Ahlstrand resigned 8/3/2015.

Ahlstrand believed she was elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2017).

Per bylaw § 3.02, only the 1-year and 3-year terms were open. Since Singer got the 3-year term, Ahlstrand must have been elected to the 1-year term (expiring 2016).

Appointment

The Board appointed Jeff Oursland to serve the remainder of Ahlstrand’s term.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2017.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2016.

Jeff Oursland was elected to a 2-year term.
Steve Molever was elected to a 1-year term.

Oursland should not have been on the ballot, as his term was not set to expire until 2017.

Oursland’s appointed term expired, so he was properly elected to a new 2-year term (expiring 2018).

No election had been held due to the pending petition.

Two positions should be open for election: the 2-year term (Ahlstrand/Oursland’s) and the 1-year term (Molever’s).

Only one position is open for election: the 1-year term completed by Molever.

V. Analysis and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the legal standard of “a preponderance of the evidence” and a strict textual interpretation of the association’s bylaws. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation.

• Primacy of Bylaw Language: The judge’s central legal conclusion was that the bylaws must be interpreted based on their plain meaning. Key quotes from the decision include:

• Key Legal Finding: The pivotal determination concerned the 2015 election. The ALJ found that under the “plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015.”

◦ Because the parties agreed that Ms. Singer was elected to the three-year term, the judge concluded that “Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term.”

◦ This finding invalidated the Petitioner’s core premise that Ahlstrand had begun a two-year term.

• Consequential Logic: This central finding created a direct logical chain that affirmed the Respondent’s actions:

1. Ms. Ahlstrand’s term was for one year, expiring in 2016.

2. When she resigned, the Board appointed Mr. Oursland to serve the remainder of her term, which correctly ended at the 2016 election.

3. Mr. Oursland was therefore “properly elected to a two-year term at that time [2016], which will expire in 2018.”

VI. Final Disposition

Based on the analysis of the bylaws and the sequence of elections, the ALJ ruled against the Petitioner.

• Recommended Order (June 19, 2017): The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Final Order (July 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision. The Final Order states, “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. The document outlines eight potential causes for which a rehearing or review may be granted, including procedural irregularities, misconduct, newly discovered material evidence, or a finding of fact that is arbitrary or contrary to law.


Tom Pyron vs Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717026-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-19
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Pyron Counsel —
Respondent Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws, Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA correctly identified only one Board position (the one-year term) was up for election in 2017 based on the Bylaws' staggered term provisions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over the number of Board of Director positions available for the 2017 election.

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated Bylaws by stating only one Board position was up for election for a one-year term in 2017, when Petitioner contended two positions (one-year and two-year terms) were open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • R4-28-1310

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Bylaw Violation, Board Term, Staggered Terms, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • R4-28-1310

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 570560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:26 (120.2 KB)

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 576045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:26 (959.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717026-REL


Briefing Document: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between homeowner Tom Pyron (“Petitioner”) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The central issue was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board of Directors position was open for election in 2017, whereas the Petitioner contended two positions should have been open.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the association’s bylaws, specifically Article III, § 3.02, which governs the staggered terms of office for the three-member board. The ALJ found that a board member’s personal understanding of their term length could not amend the plain language of the bylaws. Based on the bylaw’s schedule for staggered terms, the judge concluded that a pivotal 2015 election could only have filled a one-year and a three-year term, which sequentially led to only one position being open in 2017. The Petitioner’s petition was denied, and this decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Pyron, a condominium owner and member of the Respondent association.

◦ Respondent: Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc., represented by B. Austin Baillio, Esq., of Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

• Case Numbers: 17F-H1717026-REL; HO 17-17/026

• Adjudicator: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Final Order By: Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Hearing Date: June 12, 2017.

• Final Order Date: July 12, 2017.

The case was initiated when Tom Pyron filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on March 16, 2017, alleging a violation of the homeowners’ association’s bylaws concerning the 2017 Board of Directors election.

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

The Petitioner’s claim centered on the belief that the Respondent improperly noticed the number of available Board positions for the 2017 election.

• Core Allegation: The Respondent violated its Bylaws (Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06) by informing members that only one Board position for a one-year term was available for the 2017 election.

• Petitioner’s Contention: Two positions—one for a one-year term and one for a two-year term—should have been up for election in 2017.

• Basis of Argument: The Petitioner’s argument was built upon the 2015 election of Barbara Ahlstrand. He contended, supported by Ahlstrand’s testimony, that she was elected to a two-year term. Following this logic:

1. Ahlstrand’s term would run from 2015 to 2017.

2. When she resigned in August 2015, her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was appointed to serve the remainder of that two-year term, which would expire in 2017.

3. Therefore, Jeff Oursland should not have been on the ballot for the 2016 election, and his two-year position should have been one of the two seats open for election in 2017.

III. Respondent’s Position and Pre-Hearing Actions

The Respondent denied any violation of its bylaws and maintained that its actions were consistent with the governing documents.

• Pre-Hearing Resolution Attempts: In response to the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued election ballots. The Respondent also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution, an offer the Petitioner did not accept.

• Core Defense: The Respondent’s position was based on a direct interpretation of Bylaw § 3.02, which dictates the schedule of staggered terms.

• Basis of Argument: The Respondent argued that according to the bylaw’s prescribed cycle, only the one-year and three-year positions were up for election in 2015.

1. As it was agreed that Sandra Singer received the most votes and was elected to the three-year term, Barbara Ahlstrand must have been elected to the available one-year term.

2. Therefore, Ahlstrand’s term was set to expire in 2016.

3. Her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was correctly appointed to serve only until the 2016 election.

4. Consequently, Oursland was properly elected to a new two-year term in 2016 (expiring in 2018), and the only seat open in 2017 was the one-year term completed by Steve Molever.

IV. Chronology of Board Elections and Appointments

The dispute originated from differing interpretations of election outcomes from 2014 onward. The Board of Directors has consistently been comprised of three members.

Election Year

Agreed Facts & Election Results

Petitioner’s Interpretation/Contention

Respondent’s Interpretation/Position

Anne Fugate elected to a 3-year term.
John Haunschild elected to a 2-year term.
Ron Cadaret elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Ron Cadaret re-elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Minutes state “the election of Sandra Singer was unanimously passed by acclamation.”

Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term. No other officers were elected.

Based on bylaw § 3.02 and the 2015 Board composition, John Haunschild must have been re-elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2016), and Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term (expiring 2015).

Sandra Singer and Barbara Ahlstrand were elected. Singer received the most votes and was elected to a 3-year term. Ahlstrand resigned 8/3/2015.

Ahlstrand believed she was elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2017).

Per bylaw § 3.02, only the 1-year and 3-year terms were open. Since Singer got the 3-year term, Ahlstrand must have been elected to the 1-year term (expiring 2016).

Appointment

The Board appointed Jeff Oursland to serve the remainder of Ahlstrand’s term.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2017.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2016.

Jeff Oursland was elected to a 2-year term.
Steve Molever was elected to a 1-year term.

Oursland should not have been on the ballot, as his term was not set to expire until 2017.

Oursland’s appointed term expired, so he was properly elected to a new 2-year term (expiring 2018).

No election had been held due to the pending petition.

Two positions should be open for election: the 2-year term (Ahlstrand/Oursland’s) and the 1-year term (Molever’s).

Only one position is open for election: the 1-year term completed by Molever.

V. Analysis and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the legal standard of “a preponderance of the evidence” and a strict textual interpretation of the association’s bylaws. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation.

• Primacy of Bylaw Language: The judge’s central legal conclusion was that the bylaws must be interpreted based on their plain meaning. Key quotes from the decision include:

• Key Legal Finding: The pivotal determination concerned the 2015 election. The ALJ found that under the “plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015.”

◦ Because the parties agreed that Ms. Singer was elected to the three-year term, the judge concluded that “Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term.”

◦ This finding invalidated the Petitioner’s core premise that Ahlstrand had begun a two-year term.

• Consequential Logic: This central finding created a direct logical chain that affirmed the Respondent’s actions:

1. Ms. Ahlstrand’s term was for one year, expiring in 2016.

2. When she resigned, the Board appointed Mr. Oursland to serve the remainder of her term, which correctly ended at the 2016 election.

3. Mr. Oursland was therefore “properly elected to a two-year term at that time [2016], which will expire in 2018.”

VI. Final Disposition

Based on the analysis of the bylaws and the sequence of elections, the ALJ ruled against the Petitioner.

• Recommended Order (June 19, 2017): The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Final Order (July 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision. The Final Order states, “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. The document outlines eight potential causes for which a rehearing or review may be granted, including procedural irregularities, misconduct, newly discovered material evidence, or a finding of fact that is arbitrary or contrary to law.






Study Guide – 17F-H1717026-REL


Study Guide: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1717026-REL between Tom Pyron (Petitioner) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (Respondent). It covers the central arguments, key evidence, relevant bylaws, and the final legal decision.

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source documents.

1. What was the single issue at the heart of Tom Pyron’s petition filed on March 16, 2017?

2. According to the Association’s bylaws, how are Board of Director terms structured when the board consists of three members?

3. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding Jeff Oursland’s term on the Board of Directors?

4. What was the Respondent’s counter-argument regarding Barbara Ahlstrand’s 2015 election and, subsequently, Jeff Oursland’s term?

5. What actions did the Respondent take in an attempt to resolve the dispute with the Petitioner before the hearing?

6. Who was the key witness for the Respondent, and what was their role?

7. Explain the legal standard “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents.

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s core legal reasoning for concluding that only one board position was open in 2017?

9. What was the final outcome of the case as stated in the Recommended Order and adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

10. Following the Final Order issued on July 12, 2017, what legal recourse was available to a party dissatisfied with the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Tom Pyron’s petition alleged that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board position was open for a one-year term in the 2017 election. Pyron contended that two positions—one for a one-year term and another for a two-year term—should have been up for election.

2. Bylaw Article III, § 3.02 specifies that for a three-person board, the directors hold staggered terms of one year, two years, and three years. The bylaw further dictates which terms end at which annual meetings (e.g., the two-year term ends at the second, fourth, sixth, etc., annual meetings).

3. The Petitioner argued that Barbara Ahlstrand was elected to a two-year term in 2015. Therefore, when Jeff Oursland was appointed to fill her vacancy, his term should have expired in 2017, meaning his two-year position should have been on the 2017 ballot.

4. The Respondent argued that under the plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015. Since Sandra Singer received the most votes and secured the three-year term, Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term, meaning Mr. Oursland’s appointed term expired in 2016.

5. In response to the petition, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued ballots to include all candidates who had submitted an application. The Association also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with this resolution.

6. The key witness for the Respondent was Cynthia Quillen. She served as the Community Manager for the Association’s management company, Associated Property Management, and testified about the Board’s composition and her interpretation of the bylaws.

7. “A preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. It is described as the greater weight of evidence, which is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

8. The Judge’s decision was based on the “plain language” of Bylaw § 3.02. This bylaw dictated that only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015. Since the parties agreed Ms. Singer won the three-year term, the Judge concluded Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term, making the Respondent’s subsequent actions and election notices correct.

9. The Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order was that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. This order was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate in a Final Order, making it binding on the parties.

10. According to the Final Order, a dissatisfied party could request a rehearing within thirty days by filing a petition setting forth the reasons. The document lists eight specific causes for a rehearing. A party could also appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive essay-style response for each.

1. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of the 2015 election presented by the Petitioner and the Respondent. How did the Administrative Law Judge use the “plain language” of Bylaw § 3.02 to resolve this conflict, and what does this reveal about the interpretation of governing documents in legal disputes?

2. Trace the chain of events from the 2012 election to the 2017 dispute. Explain how the board composition, terms of office, and specific actions (like Ms. Ahlstrand’s resignation) compounded to create the disagreement at the heart of this case.

3. Discuss the burden of proof in this administrative hearing. Define “preponderance of the evidence” and explain why the Petitioner, Tom Pyron, failed to meet this standard in the view of the Administrative Law Judge.

4. Examine the roles and authorities of the different entities involved: the homeowners’ association Board, the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Administrative Law Judge. How do these bodies interact to resolve disputes within a planned community?

5. Based on the Final Order, outline the legal recourse available to Tom Pyron following the denial of his petition. What specific grounds for a rehearing are mentioned, and what is the process for further appeal?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Acclamation

A form of election where a candidate is declared elected without opposition, as when Sandra Singer’s election was “unanimously passed by acclamation” in 2014.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, draws conclusions of law, and issues a recommended decision. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations. The Commissioner of the Department, Judy Lowe, issued the Final Order in this case.

Bylaws

The governing documents of the homeowners’ association that outline its rules and procedures, including the number of directors, terms of office, and process for filling vacancies.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which accepts and adopts the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order becomes effective and can only be changed by a successful rehearing or judicial appeal.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers petitions for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner was Tom Pyron, a homeowner in the association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing, defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The Petitioner bore this burden to prove the Respondent violated its bylaws.

Recommended Order

The decision and order issued by the Administrative Law Judge following a hearing. In this case, it recommended that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Rehearing

A formal request to have a case heard again. The Final Order specifies that a petition for rehearing must be filed within thirty days and may be granted for specific causes, such as newly discovered evidence or an arbitrary decision.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Staggered Terms

A system where not all board members are elected at the same time. As defined in Bylaw § 3.02, the three-person board had terms of one, two, and three years to ensure continuity.

Unexpired Portion of the Prior Director’s Term

The remainder of a board member’s term that an appointee serves after the original member resigns or is removed, as specified in Bylaw § 3.6.






Blog Post – 17F-H1717026-REL


We Read an HOA Lawsuit So You Don’t Have To: 3 Shocking Lessons Hidden in the Bylaws

1. Introduction: The Hidden Drama in Your Community’s Fine Print

If you live in a condominium association or a planned community, you’re familiar with the thick packet of governing documents you received at closing—the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Bylaws. For many, these documents are filed away and forgotten, seen as a collection of mundane rules about trash cans and paint colors. But hidden within that legalese is the complete operating manual for your community, and a simple misunderstanding of its contents can have significant consequences.

What happens when a homeowner’s interpretation of the rules clashes with the association’s? In a case from Arizona involving homeowner Tom Pyron and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, the dispute escalated into a formal administrative hearing. The central question was simple: how many board seats were open for election in 2017? But this wasn’t just a procedural disagreement. Court documents reveal that before the hearing, the association offered to re-issue ballots to include all candidates and even “offered to pay Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution.” The homeowner refused.

This decision transforms the case from a simple rules dispute into a cautionary tale about how a deeply held belief can override a pragmatic, no-cost compromise. The official court documents offer a fascinating look at how community governance can go awry, revealing powerful, practical lessons for any homeowner or board member who believes they know what the rules should say.

2. Takeaway 1: Your Beliefs Don’t Overrule the Bylaws

What You Think the Rules Say Doesn’t Matter—Only What They Actually Say

The core of the dispute rested on a belief held by a former board member, Ms. Ahlstrand, who was elected in 2015. She testified that she believed she had been elected to a two-year term. Based on this belief, the petitioner argued that the director appointed to replace her after her resignation should have served until 2017, meaning a two-year position was open for election that year.

The Administrative Law Judge, however, looked not at what anyone believed, but at the “plain language” of the community’s governing documents. The judge’s conclusion was a matter of inescapable logic derived directly from the bylaws:

1. First, Bylaw § 3.02 clearly states that in an election with multiple open seats, “the person receiving the most votes will become the Director with the longest term.”

2. Next, the court record shows that “the parties agreed that… because she got the most votes, Ms. Singer was elected to a three-year term” in the 2015 election.

3. Finally, the judge determined that according to the same bylaw, only the one-year and three-year terms were available in 2015. Since Ms. Singer secured the three-year term, Ms. Ahlstrand, by definition, must have been elected to the only other available position: the one-year term.

The lesson is stark and unambiguous: an individual’s interpretation or assumption, however sincere, cannot change the written rules. The bylaws are the ultimate authority. As the judge stated in the final decision, the documents speak for themselves.

The Bylaws do not allow their plain language to be modified or amended by a member’s understanding.

3. Takeaway 2: The Domino Effect of a Single Resignation

A Single Resignation Can Create Years of Confusion

This entire legal conflict was set in motion by a single, routine event: a board member’s resignation. The timeline of events shows how one small action, when combined with a misunderstanding of the rules, can create a ripple effect with long-lasting consequences.

1. On August 3, 2015, the newly elected board member, Ms. Ahlstrand, resigned.

2. The Board then appointed another member, Jeff Oursland, to serve the remainder of her term, as permitted by the bylaws.

3. The critical point of contention became the length of that “remainder.” Was it the rest of a one-year term ending in 2016, or a two-year term ending in 2017?

4. The judge’s determination that Ahlstrand’s original term was only one year (as explained above) meant that Mr. Oursland’s appointed term correctly expired in 2016. He was then properly elected to a new two-year term at the 2016 meeting.

5. This sequence confirmed that the association was correct all along: only one board position (a one-year term) was actually open for election in 2017.

A single resignation created two years of confusion that ultimately required an administrative hearing to resolve. It’s a powerful reminder of how crucial it is for boards to precisely follow their own procedures, especially when handling vacancies and appointments, as one small error can cascade into years of conflict.

4. Takeaway 3: The Hidden Complexity of “Staggered Terms”

“Staggered Terms” Are Designed for Stability, But Can Cause Chaos

Many associations use staggered terms for their board of directors. The concept, outlined in Bylaw § 3.02 for the Cliffs at North Mountain, is simple: instead of all directors being elected at once, they serve terms of varying lengths (in this case, one, two, and three years). This is a common and effective practice designed to ensure leadership continuity and prevent the entire board from turning over in a single election.

However, this case reveals the hidden downside of that system: complexity. The staggered terms created an election cycle where the available term lengths changed every single year. The court documents show that in 2014, the one-year and two-year positions were on the ballot. In 2015, the one-year and three-year terms were available. This rotating schedule was difficult for members—and apparently even some board members—to track accurately.

This built-in complexity was the root cause of the entire disagreement. The system’s lack of intuitive clarity created the exact conditions necessary for a personal belief, like Ms. Ahlstrand’s, to seem plausible even when it was contrary to the bylaws. The very governance structure intended to create stability inadvertently created the fertile ground for confusion, allowing a misunderstanding to grow into a lawsuit.

5. Conclusion: The Power Is in the Paperwork

The overarching theme from this case is that in the world of community associations, the governing documents are the ultimate source of truth. They are not merely suggestions; they are the binding legal framework that dictates how the community must operate. A board’s actions and a homeowner’s rights are all defined within that paperwork.

In the end, the homeowner’s petition was denied, and the judge’s order affirmed the association’s position. The written rules, as found in the bylaws, prevailed over individual beliefs and interpretations. The case stands as a powerful testament to the importance of reading, understanding, and strictly adhering to your community’s foundational documents.

This entire conflict stemmed from a few lines in a legal document—when was the last time you read yours?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Pyron (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Cynthia Quillen (property manager)
    Associated Property Management
    Community Manager

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (coordinator)
    HOA Coordinator/Admin Official listed for rehearing requests and transmission

Other Participants

  • Anne Fugate (witness)
    Elected to the Board in 2012
  • Barbara Ahlstrand (witness)
    Elected to the Board in 2015
  • Kevin Downey (witness)
    Candidate for 2017 election
  • John Haunschild (board member)
    Elected to the Board in 2012
  • Ron Cadaret (board member)
    Elected to the Board in 2012, re-elected 2013
  • Sandra Singer (board member)
    Elected to the Board in 2014 and 2015
  • Jeff Oursland (board member)
    Appointed to the Board in 2015, elected 2016
  • Steve Molever (board member)
    Elected to the Board in 2016

Tom Pyron vs Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717026-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-19
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Pyron Counsel —
Respondent Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws, Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA correctly identified only one Board position (the one-year term) was up for election in 2017 based on the Bylaws' staggered term provisions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over the number of Board of Director positions available for the 2017 election.

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated Bylaws by stating only one Board position was up for election for a one-year term in 2017, when Petitioner contended two positions (one-year and two-year terms) were open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • R4-28-1310

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Bylaw Violation, Board Term, Staggered Terms, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • R4-28-1310

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 570560.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:38 (120.2 KB)

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 576045.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:41 (959.2 KB)

  • 2016




Study Guide – 17F-H1717026-REL


Study Guide: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1717026-REL between Tom Pyron (Petitioner) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (Respondent). It covers the central arguments, key evidence, relevant bylaws, and the final legal decision.

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source documents.

1. What was the single issue at the heart of Tom Pyron’s petition filed on March 16, 2017?

2. According to the Association’s bylaws, how are Board of Director terms structured when the board consists of three members?

3. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding Jeff Oursland’s term on the Board of Directors?

4. What was the Respondent’s counter-argument regarding Barbara Ahlstrand’s 2015 election and, subsequently, Jeff Oursland’s term?

5. What actions did the Respondent take in an attempt to resolve the dispute with the Petitioner before the hearing?

6. Who was the key witness for the Respondent, and what was their role?

7. Explain the legal standard “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents.

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s core legal reasoning for concluding that only one board position was open in 2017?

9. What was the final outcome of the case as stated in the Recommended Order and adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

10. Following the Final Order issued on July 12, 2017, what legal recourse was available to a party dissatisfied with the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Tom Pyron’s petition alleged that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board position was open for a one-year term in the 2017 election. Pyron contended that two positions—one for a one-year term and another for a two-year term—should have been up for election.

2. Bylaw Article III, § 3.02 specifies that for a three-person board, the directors hold staggered terms of one year, two years, and three years. The bylaw further dictates which terms end at which annual meetings (e.g., the two-year term ends at the second, fourth, sixth, etc., annual meetings).

3. The Petitioner argued that Barbara Ahlstrand was elected to a two-year term in 2015. Therefore, when Jeff Oursland was appointed to fill her vacancy, his term should have expired in 2017, meaning his two-year position should have been on the 2017 ballot.

4. The Respondent argued that under the plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015. Since Sandra Singer received the most votes and secured the three-year term, Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term, meaning Mr. Oursland’s appointed term expired in 2016.

5. In response to the petition, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued ballots to include all candidates who had submitted an application. The Association also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with this resolution.

6. The key witness for the Respondent was Cynthia Quillen. She served as the Community Manager for the Association’s management company, Associated Property Management, and testified about the Board’s composition and her interpretation of the bylaws.

7. “A preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. It is described as the greater weight of evidence, which is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

8. The Judge’s decision was based on the “plain language” of Bylaw § 3.02. This bylaw dictated that only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015. Since the parties agreed Ms. Singer won the three-year term, the Judge concluded Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term, making the Respondent’s subsequent actions and election notices correct.

9. The Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order was that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. This order was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate in a Final Order, making it binding on the parties.

10. According to the Final Order, a dissatisfied party could request a rehearing within thirty days by filing a petition setting forth the reasons. The document lists eight specific causes for a rehearing. A party could also appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive essay-style response for each.

1. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of the 2015 election presented by the Petitioner and the Respondent. How did the Administrative Law Judge use the “plain language” of Bylaw § 3.02 to resolve this conflict, and what does this reveal about the interpretation of governing documents in legal disputes?

2. Trace the chain of events from the 2012 election to the 2017 dispute. Explain how the board composition, terms of office, and specific actions (like Ms. Ahlstrand’s resignation) compounded to create the disagreement at the heart of this case.

3. Discuss the burden of proof in this administrative hearing. Define “preponderance of the evidence” and explain why the Petitioner, Tom Pyron, failed to meet this standard in the view of the Administrative Law Judge.

4. Examine the roles and authorities of the different entities involved: the homeowners’ association Board, the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Administrative Law Judge. How do these bodies interact to resolve disputes within a planned community?

5. Based on the Final Order, outline the legal recourse available to Tom Pyron following the denial of his petition. What specific grounds for a rehearing are mentioned, and what is the process for further appeal?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Acclamation

A form of election where a candidate is declared elected without opposition, as when Sandra Singer’s election was “unanimously passed by acclamation” in 2014.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, draws conclusions of law, and issues a recommended decision. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations. The Commissioner of the Department, Judy Lowe, issued the Final Order in this case.

Bylaws

The governing documents of the homeowners’ association that outline its rules and procedures, including the number of directors, terms of office, and process for filling vacancies.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which accepts and adopts the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order becomes effective and can only be changed by a successful rehearing or judicial appeal.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers petitions for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner was Tom Pyron, a homeowner in the association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing, defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The Petitioner bore this burden to prove the Respondent violated its bylaws.

Recommended Order

The decision and order issued by the Administrative Law Judge following a hearing. In this case, it recommended that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Rehearing

A formal request to have a case heard again. The Final Order specifies that a petition for rehearing must be filed within thirty days and may be granted for specific causes, such as newly discovered evidence or an arbitrary decision.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Staggered Terms

A system where not all board members are elected at the same time. As defined in Bylaw § 3.02, the three-person board had terms of one, two, and three years to ensure continuity.

Unexpired Portion of the Prior Director’s Term

The remainder of a board member’s term that an appointee serves after the original member resigns or is removed, as specified in Bylaw § 3.6.






Blog Post – 17F-H1717026-REL


We Read an HOA Lawsuit So You Don’t Have To: 3 Shocking Lessons Hidden in the Bylaws

1. Introduction: The Hidden Drama in Your Community’s Fine Print

If you live in a condominium association or a planned community, you’re familiar with the thick packet of governing documents you received at closing—the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Bylaws. For many, these documents are filed away and forgotten, seen as a collection of mundane rules about trash cans and paint colors. But hidden within that legalese is the complete operating manual for your community, and a simple misunderstanding of its contents can have significant consequences.

What happens when a homeowner’s interpretation of the rules clashes with the association’s? In a case from Arizona involving homeowner Tom Pyron and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, the dispute escalated into a formal administrative hearing. The central question was simple: how many board seats were open for election in 2017? But this wasn’t just a procedural disagreement. Court documents reveal that before the hearing, the association offered to re-issue ballots to include all candidates and even “offered to pay Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution.” The homeowner refused.

This decision transforms the case from a simple rules dispute into a cautionary tale about how a deeply held belief can override a pragmatic, no-cost compromise. The official court documents offer a fascinating look at how community governance can go awry, revealing powerful, practical lessons for any homeowner or board member who believes they know what the rules should say.

2. Takeaway 1: Your Beliefs Don’t Overrule the Bylaws

What You Think the Rules Say Doesn’t Matter—Only What They Actually Say

The core of the dispute rested on a belief held by a former board member, Ms. Ahlstrand, who was elected in 2015. She testified that she believed she had been elected to a two-year term. Based on this belief, the petitioner argued that the director appointed to replace her after her resignation should have served until 2017, meaning a two-year position was open for election that year.

The Administrative Law Judge, however, looked not at what anyone believed, but at the “plain language” of the community’s governing documents. The judge’s conclusion was a matter of inescapable logic derived directly from the bylaws:

1. First, Bylaw § 3.02 clearly states that in an election with multiple open seats, “the person receiving the most votes will become the Director with the longest term.”

2. Next, the court record shows that “the parties agreed that… because she got the most votes, Ms. Singer was elected to a three-year term” in the 2015 election.

3. Finally, the judge determined that according to the same bylaw, only the one-year and three-year terms were available in 2015. Since Ms. Singer secured the three-year term, Ms. Ahlstrand, by definition, must have been elected to the only other available position: the one-year term.

The lesson is stark and unambiguous: an individual’s interpretation or assumption, however sincere, cannot change the written rules. The bylaws are the ultimate authority. As the judge stated in the final decision, the documents speak for themselves.

The Bylaws do not allow their plain language to be modified or amended by a member’s understanding.

3. Takeaway 2: The Domino Effect of a Single Resignation

A Single Resignation Can Create Years of Confusion

This entire legal conflict was set in motion by a single, routine event: a board member’s resignation. The timeline of events shows how one small action, when combined with a misunderstanding of the rules, can create a ripple effect with long-lasting consequences.

1. On August 3, 2015, the newly elected board member, Ms. Ahlstrand, resigned.

2. The Board then appointed another member, Jeff Oursland, to serve the remainder of her term, as permitted by the bylaws.

3. The critical point of contention became the length of that “remainder.” Was it the rest of a one-year term ending in 2016, or a two-year term ending in 2017?

4. The judge’s determination that Ahlstrand’s original term was only one year (as explained above) meant that Mr. Oursland’s appointed term correctly expired in 2016. He was then properly elected to a new two-year term at the 2016 meeting.

5. This sequence confirmed that the association was correct all along: only one board position (a one-year term) was actually open for election in 2017.

A single resignation created two years of confusion that ultimately required an administrative hearing to resolve. It’s a powerful reminder of how crucial it is for boards to precisely follow their own procedures, especially when handling vacancies and appointments, as one small error can cascade into years of conflict.

4. Takeaway 3: The Hidden Complexity of “Staggered Terms”

“Staggered Terms” Are Designed for Stability, But Can Cause Chaos

Many associations use staggered terms for their board of directors. The concept, outlined in Bylaw § 3.02 for the Cliffs at North Mountain, is simple: instead of all directors being elected at once, they serve terms of varying lengths (in this case, one, two, and three years). This is a common and effective practice designed to ensure leadership continuity and prevent the entire board from turning over in a single election.

However, this case reveals the hidden downside of that system: complexity. The staggered terms created an election cycle where the available term lengths changed every single year. The court documents show that in 2014, the one-year and two-year positions were on the ballot. In 2015, the one-year and three-year terms were available. This rotating schedule was difficult for members—and apparently even some board members—to track accurately.

This built-in complexity was the root cause of the entire disagreement. The system’s lack of intuitive clarity created the exact conditions necessary for a personal belief, like Ms. Ahlstrand’s, to seem plausible even when it was contrary to the bylaws. The very governance structure intended to create stability inadvertently created the fertile ground for confusion, allowing a misunderstanding to grow into a lawsuit.

5. Conclusion: The Power Is in the Paperwork

The overarching theme from this case is that in the world of community associations, the governing documents are the ultimate source of truth. They are not merely suggestions; they are the binding legal framework that dictates how the community must operate. A board’s actions and a homeowner’s rights are all defined within that paperwork.

In the end, the homeowner’s petition was denied, and the judge’s order affirmed the association’s position. The written rules, as found in the bylaws, prevailed over individual beliefs and interpretations. The case stands as a powerful testament to the importance of reading, understanding, and strictly adhering to your community’s foundational documents.

This entire conflict stemmed from a few lines in a legal document—when was the last time you read yours?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Pyron (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Cynthia Quillen (property manager)
    Associated Property Management
    Community Manager

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (coordinator)
    HOA Coordinator/Admin Official listed for rehearing requests and transmission

Other Participants

  • Anne Fugate (witness)
    Elected to the Board in 2012
  • Barbara Ahlstrand (witness)
    Elected to the Board in 2015
  • Kevin Downey (witness)
    Candidate for 2017 election
  • John Haunschild (board member)
    Elected to the Board in 2012
  • Ron Cadaret (board member)
    Elected to the Board in 2012, re-elected 2013
  • Sandra Singer (board member)
    Elected to the Board in 2014 and 2015
  • Jeff Oursland (board member)
    Appointed to the Board in 2015, elected 2016
  • Steve Molever (board member)
    Elected to the Board in 2016

Tom Pyron vs Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717026-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-19
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Pyron Counsel —
Respondent Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws, Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA correctly identified only one Board position (the one-year term) was up for election in 2017 based on the Bylaws' staggered term provisions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over the number of Board of Director positions available for the 2017 election.

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated Bylaws by stating only one Board position was up for election for a one-year term in 2017, when Petitioner contended two positions (one-year and two-year terms) were open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • R4-28-1310

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Bylaw Violation, Board Term, Staggered Terms, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • R4-28-1310

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 570560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:49 (120.2 KB)

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 576045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:50 (959.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717026-REL


Briefing Document: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between homeowner Tom Pyron (“Petitioner”) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The central issue was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board of Directors position was open for election in 2017, whereas the Petitioner contended two positions should have been open.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the association’s bylaws, specifically Article III, § 3.02, which governs the staggered terms of office for the three-member board. The ALJ found that a board member’s personal understanding of their term length could not amend the plain language of the bylaws. Based on the bylaw’s schedule for staggered terms, the judge concluded that a pivotal 2015 election could only have filled a one-year and a three-year term, which sequentially led to only one position being open in 2017. The Petitioner’s petition was denied, and this decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Pyron, a condominium owner and member of the Respondent association.

◦ Respondent: Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc., represented by B. Austin Baillio, Esq., of Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

• Case Numbers: 17F-H1717026-REL; HO 17-17/026

• Adjudicator: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Final Order By: Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Hearing Date: June 12, 2017.

• Final Order Date: July 12, 2017.

The case was initiated when Tom Pyron filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on March 16, 2017, alleging a violation of the homeowners’ association’s bylaws concerning the 2017 Board of Directors election.

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

The Petitioner’s claim centered on the belief that the Respondent improperly noticed the number of available Board positions for the 2017 election.

• Core Allegation: The Respondent violated its Bylaws (Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06) by informing members that only one Board position for a one-year term was available for the 2017 election.

• Petitioner’s Contention: Two positions—one for a one-year term and one for a two-year term—should have been up for election in 2017.

• Basis of Argument: The Petitioner’s argument was built upon the 2015 election of Barbara Ahlstrand. He contended, supported by Ahlstrand’s testimony, that she was elected to a two-year term. Following this logic:

1. Ahlstrand’s term would run from 2015 to 2017.

2. When she resigned in August 2015, her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was appointed to serve the remainder of that two-year term, which would expire in 2017.

3. Therefore, Jeff Oursland should not have been on the ballot for the 2016 election, and his two-year position should have been one of the two seats open for election in 2017.

III. Respondent’s Position and Pre-Hearing Actions

The Respondent denied any violation of its bylaws and maintained that its actions were consistent with the governing documents.

• Pre-Hearing Resolution Attempts: In response to the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued election ballots. The Respondent also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution, an offer the Petitioner did not accept.

• Core Defense: The Respondent’s position was based on a direct interpretation of Bylaw § 3.02, which dictates the schedule of staggered terms.

• Basis of Argument: The Respondent argued that according to the bylaw’s prescribed cycle, only the one-year and three-year positions were up for election in 2015.

1. As it was agreed that Sandra Singer received the most votes and was elected to the three-year term, Barbara Ahlstrand must have been elected to the available one-year term.

2. Therefore, Ahlstrand’s term was set to expire in 2016.

3. Her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was correctly appointed to serve only until the 2016 election.

4. Consequently, Oursland was properly elected to a new two-year term in 2016 (expiring in 2018), and the only seat open in 2017 was the one-year term completed by Steve Molever.

IV. Chronology of Board Elections and Appointments

The dispute originated from differing interpretations of election outcomes from 2014 onward. The Board of Directors has consistently been comprised of three members.

Election Year

Agreed Facts & Election Results

Petitioner’s Interpretation/Contention

Respondent’s Interpretation/Position

Anne Fugate elected to a 3-year term.
John Haunschild elected to a 2-year term.
Ron Cadaret elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Ron Cadaret re-elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Minutes state “the election of Sandra Singer was unanimously passed by acclamation.”

Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term. No other officers were elected.

Based on bylaw § 3.02 and the 2015 Board composition, John Haunschild must have been re-elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2016), and Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term (expiring 2015).

Sandra Singer and Barbara Ahlstrand were elected. Singer received the most votes and was elected to a 3-year term. Ahlstrand resigned 8/3/2015.

Ahlstrand believed she was elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2017).

Per bylaw § 3.02, only the 1-year and 3-year terms were open. Since Singer got the 3-year term, Ahlstrand must have been elected to the 1-year term (expiring 2016).

Appointment

The Board appointed Jeff Oursland to serve the remainder of Ahlstrand’s term.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2017.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2016.

Jeff Oursland was elected to a 2-year term.
Steve Molever was elected to a 1-year term.

Oursland should not have been on the ballot, as his term was not set to expire until 2017.

Oursland’s appointed term expired, so he was properly elected to a new 2-year term (expiring 2018).

No election had been held due to the pending petition.

Two positions should be open for election: the 2-year term (Ahlstrand/Oursland’s) and the 1-year term (Molever’s).

Only one position is open for election: the 1-year term completed by Molever.

V. Analysis and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the legal standard of “a preponderance of the evidence” and a strict textual interpretation of the association’s bylaws. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation.

• Primacy of Bylaw Language: The judge’s central legal conclusion was that the bylaws must be interpreted based on their plain meaning. Key quotes from the decision include:

• Key Legal Finding: The pivotal determination concerned the 2015 election. The ALJ found that under the “plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015.”

◦ Because the parties agreed that Ms. Singer was elected to the three-year term, the judge concluded that “Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term.”

◦ This finding invalidated the Petitioner’s core premise that Ahlstrand had begun a two-year term.

• Consequential Logic: This central finding created a direct logical chain that affirmed the Respondent’s actions:

1. Ms. Ahlstrand’s term was for one year, expiring in 2016.

2. When she resigned, the Board appointed Mr. Oursland to serve the remainder of her term, which correctly ended at the 2016 election.

3. Mr. Oursland was therefore “properly elected to a two-year term at that time [2016], which will expire in 2018.”

VI. Final Disposition

Based on the analysis of the bylaws and the sequence of elections, the ALJ ruled against the Petitioner.

• Recommended Order (June 19, 2017): The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Final Order (July 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision. The Final Order states, “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. The document outlines eight potential causes for which a rehearing or review may be granted, including procedural irregularities, misconduct, newly discovered material evidence, or a finding of fact that is arbitrary or contrary to law.


Linda Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717029-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-18
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Linda Haderli Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. Counsel Samuel E. Arrowsmith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA lacked authority to impose discipline (removal as club president and 24-month ban on holding office) under governing documents.

Petitioner alleged Respondent lacked authority pursuant to governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and preclude her from serving as any officer for 24 months as purported discipline. The Tribunal concluded the Board’s decision was in excess of its authority because Respondent did not establish that removal and the prohibition on holding office were remedies available under the governing documents.

Orders: Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party; Respondent's imposed discipline was quashed; Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R’s Section 14.2
  • CC&R’s Section 15.2B
  • CC&R’s Section 12.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: discipline, governing documents, authority, club officer removal, homeowner vs HOA
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R’s Section 14.2
  • CC&R’s Section 15.2B
  • CC&R’s Section 12.2

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 570378.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:46 (84.2 KB)

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 575026.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:47 (700.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717029-REL


Briefing Document: Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between resident Linda Haderli (Petitioner) and the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s decision to remove Ms. Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club and to bar her from holding any club office for 24 months as a disciplinary measure.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Haderli. The central finding was that the disciplinary action imposed by the Association was in excess of the authority granted by its own governing documents (CC&Rs). While the Association’s rules allowed for remedies such as financial assessments up to $500 or the suspension of common area use rights for violations, they did not provide for the removal of a resident from an elected club office. Consequently, the ALJ ordered that Ms. Haderli be deemed the prevailing party, the Association’s disciplinary action be quashed, and the Association reimburse Ms. Haderli’s $500 filing fee. This decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Linda Haderli

◦ Respondent: Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., a homeowners association in Mesa, Arizona.

• Legal Venue: The Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 17F-H1717029-REL

• Hearing Date: May 30, 2017

• Core Issue: On March 28, 2017, Ms. Haderli filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She alleged that the Association lacked the authority under its governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and to prohibit her from serving in any club officer position for two years as a form of discipline.

The Association’s Disciplinary Action and Justification

The Association took disciplinary action against Ms. Haderli and provided three specific reasons for its decision in a formal letter:

1. Challenging Board Policies: The letter accused Ms. Haderli of harassing Association employees and circumventing established systems designed to implement Association policies.

2. Improper Officer Representation: The Association stated that Ms. Haderli had permitted Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor” to the Pickleball Club, a position not recognized as an official Officer position in the Pickleball By-Laws.

3. Unauthorized Representation to External Entities: The Association claimed Ms. Haderli had represented herself to the City of Mesa and SRP (Salt River Project) as having the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association, which had not been granted by the Board of Directors.

Analysis of Allegations and Testimony

During the May 30, 2017 hearing, testimony was presented by both parties regarding the three justifications for the disciplinary action.

Allegation 1: Harassment of an Association Employee

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria testified that on January 4, 2017, Ms. Haderli had a “contentious interaction” with an employee, Barb Putnam. According to some observers, Ms. Haderli was yelling. The following day, Ms. Putnam was hospitalized with a hemorrhage in her eye. Ms. Candelaria “theorized” that the stress from the encounter caused the medical issue. She collected written statements from observers but did not speak with Ms. Haderli about the incident, citing confidentiality concerns.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, explaining that her hearing loss sometimes causes her to speak louder than intended, which can be misinterpreted as yelling. She stated she was attempting to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that Ms. Putnam was uncooperative. Ms. Haderli testified she was unaware of the harassment accusation until reviewing exhibits for the hearing with her attorney.

Allegation 2: Improper Officer Representation (Joyce Wooton)

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli testified that Ms. Wooton was already serving as an advisor to the Pickleball Club when Ms. Haderli was elected Vice President, a full year before she became President on March 1, 2016.

Allegation 3: Unauthorized Representation to External Entities

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria stated that while the Pickleball Club was exploring a project to build a small structure, Ms. Haderli contacted the City of Mesa and SRP directly, representing herself as acting on behalf of the Association. This continued even after Ms. Haderli was advised to work through the project’s architect for technical questions.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied representing herself as having authority to act for the Association. She testified that her intent was merely to gather background information to be better informed about the project. She initially did not want to provide her name or address to the entities for fear of appearing to act in an official capacity, only providing the address when required because regulations differ by city area.

Governing Documents and Permitted Remedies

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the specific remedies available to the Association as outlined in its governing documents, the CC&Rs. The Association clarified that the discipline was imposed on Ms. Haderli in her capacity as a resident who violated community rules, not as a disciplinary action against the Pickleball Club itself.

The following sections of the CC&Rs were cited as relevant:

CC&R Section

Description

Authorized Remedy

Section 14.2

Employee Abuse: Prohibits physical or verbal harassment of employees by residents.

Enforcement as an “Other Violation” under Section 15.2B.

Section 15.2B

Other Violations: Stipulates that such violations are subject to a financial penalty.

An assessment set by the Board of Directors, not to exceed $500.00.

Section 12.2

Suspension of Rights: Grants the Association the right to suspend an Owner’s rights for infractions.

Suspension of an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights.

Legal Conclusions and Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key conclusions of law that led to the final order.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner, Linda Haderli, bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted without the authority granted by its governing documents.

• Excess of Authority: The Respondent (the Association) “did not establish that removal as the Pickleball Club President and/or a prohibition of holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months is a remedy available under the governing documents.”

• Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Directors’ decision to impose this specific discipline was in excess of its authority.

Recommended and Final Order

Based on these conclusions, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order on June 18, 2017:

1. Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party: Linda Haderli was declared the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Discipline Quashed: The disciplinary action imposed by the Association against Ms. Haderli was ordered to be quashed.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to pay Ms. Haderli her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

On June 21, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety. This order became a final administrative action, effective immediately.