Category Archives: HOA Cases

Kurt Gronlund vs. Cottonfields Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716024-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-05-11
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kurt Gronlund Counsel —
Respondent Cottonfields Community Association Counsel Troy B. Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner accepted the ALJ decision granting the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, recommending dismissal of the petition due to the Department's lack of statutory jurisdiction over the dispute, which involved a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA) and the rights of a third-party Golf Course Owner.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute because the REMA was not considered a 'community document' under A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) and the requested relief implicated the rights of a non-party (the Golf Course Owner) over whom the Department has no jurisdiction.

Key Issues & Findings

Jurisdiction over REMA Amendment Dispute

Petitioner sought a finding that REMA Amendments 2 and 3 were void because the HOA board unilaterally amended the REMA without the required member vote (two-thirds majority) as specified in the CC&Rs and REMA, and sought an order for the removal of the amendments from the record.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge recommended granting Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the Complaint.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(2)
  • CC&Rs 14.2
  • REMA Article 12

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, summary judgment, golf course, REMA, third party
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&Rs 14.2
  • REMA 5.1
  • REMA Article 12

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716024-REL Decision – 563660.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:21 (99.8 KB)

17F-H1716024-REL Decision – 568840.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:24 (854.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716024-REL


Briefing Document: Gronlund vs. Cottonfields Community Association (Case No. 17F-H1716024-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and decision in the case of Kurt Gronlund versus the Cottonfields Community Association, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centers on the petitioner’s allegation that the Homeowners Association (HOA) board improperly amended a critical land-use agreement in 2011 without a required vote of the membership, ultimately enabling the commercial rezoning of an adjacent golf course.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the HOA’s motion for summary judgment, and the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted this decision, dismissing the petition. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the petitioner’s claim but on a crucial lack of jurisdiction. The ALJ determined that the Department of Real Estate could not rule on the matter for two primary reasons:

1. The governing agreement in question (the REMA) is not a “community document” as defined by the relevant Arizona statute, placing it outside the Department’s purview.

2. The relief sought by the petitioner would directly implicate the property rights of a third party (the Golf Course Owner) and a prior legal settlement, which exceeds the Department’s statutory authority.

While acknowledging the petitioner’s concerns about the golf course development may be “well-founded,” the decision concluded that the petitioner’s available remedies lie in electing a new HOA board, filing a lawsuit in a judicial forum, or seeking legislative change.

Case Overview

This case involves a dispute between a homeowner and his HOA regarding the amendment of a land-use agreement governing a golf course property.

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Description

Petitioner

Kurt Gronlund

A homeowner within the Cottonfields community and a member of the Respondent association.

Respondent

Cottonfields Community Association

The Homeowners Association (HOA) for the Cottonfields development.

Third Party

The Golf Course Owner

A separate legal entity that owns the golf course property adjacent to the community.

Case Chronology

• December 11, 2001: The developer records both the Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA) and the community’s CC&Rs.

• March 2011: The Cottonfields HOA board votes 3-2 to amend the REMA.

• March 3 & May 16, 2011: Amendments 2 and 3 to the REMA, which alter the legal description of the golf course property, are officially recorded.

• 2014: Litigation (Case No. CV2014-000639) begins in Maricopa County Superior Court between the HOA and the Golf Course Owner regarding the REMA and its amendments.

• July 2015: The HOA and the Golf Course Owner execute a settlement agreement.

• August 7, 2015: The superior court lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice.

• October 5, 2016: The HOA president represents to the City Council that homeowners favor rezoning the golf course. The Council approves a rezone from “GC” (Golf Course) to Commercial, relying on the 2011 REMA amendments.

• February 3, 2017: Kurt Gronlund files a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• April 27, 2017: The HOA files a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing a lack of jurisdiction.

• May 10, 2017: Oral arguments on the motion are held.

• May 11, 2017: The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision recommending dismissal.

• May 11, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issues a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision and dismissing the case.

Core Dispute: Unilateral Amendment of the REMA

The petitioner’s case is founded on the claim that the HOA board acted in violation of its own governing documents when it facilitated changes to the REMA without consulting the community’s homeowners.

Petitioner’s Allegations

On February 3, 2017, Kurt Gronlund filed a petition asserting that the HOA board’s actions in 2011 were illegal and directly led to the loss of protection for homeowner property values.

• The Unilateral Action: The petition states, “[In] March 2011 the HOA board voted 3-2 to unilaterally amend REMA 5.1’s use restriction on the golf course property without the required vote of the approximately 450 eligible class members…”

• The Consequence: These amendments were used as justification for the HOA president to support a commercial rezoning of the golf course property before the City Council on October 5, 2016. The petitioner argues this “stripped away that last layer of protection” for homeowners who believed the golf course could not be developed without their approval.

• Homeowner Reliance: During oral arguments, the petitioner testified that members relied on the protections within the CC&Rs and REMA when purchasing their homes, believing development required a two-thirds majority vote.

Petitioner’s Requested Relief

The petitioner respectfully requested that the Administrative Court issue the following orders:

1. Find that REMA Section 5.1 may not be amended without the member vote required by REMA Article 12 and CC&Rs Section 14.2.

2. Find that Amendments 2 and 3 to the REMA are void and unenforceable.

3. Order the HOA Board to remove Amendments 2 and 3 from the public record.

Analysis of Governing Document Provisions

The dispute hinges on the interpretation of and interaction between two key legal documents: the REMA and the HOA’s CC&Rs.

Document

Section

Description

Key Language

Section 5.1

Use Restriction: Restricts the golf course property’s use to either a golf course or open space.

“The Golf Course Property shall be used solely and exclusively for Golf Course Use or as open space, and for no other purposes.”

Article 12

Amendment Procedure: Stipulates that changes to Section 5.1 require the same member vote as an amendment to the HOA’s Declaration (CC&Rs).

“…no termination, cancellation, change, modification or amendment of paragraph 5.1… shall be made without the written approval thereof by the number of Members… required to amend the Declaration pursuant to Section 13.2 thereof.”

Section 14.2

Member Vote Requirement: Defines the threshold for amending the CC&Rs.

“…may be amended only by the affirmative vote (in person or by proxy) or written consent of: (a) Members holding not less than two-thirds (2/3) of all Class A votes then entitled to be cast; and (b) Members holding not less than two thirds (2/3) of all Class B votes…”

Section 14.17

Third-Party Rights: Protects the rights of the Golf Course Owner, stating that provisions benefiting them cannot be amended without their written consent.

“…no provision of this Declaration… which grants to or confers upon the Golf Course Owner or the Golf Course Property any rights… shall be modified, amended or revoked in any way without the express written consent of the Golf Course Owner.”

Jurisdictional Challenge and Legal Rationale for Dismissal

The HOA’s defense focused not on the factual allegations but on the argument that the Department of Real Estate was the improper forum for this dispute. The ALJ ultimately agreed with this position.

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The Cottonfields Community Association argued that the Department could not grant the petitioner’s requested relief because:

1. The REMA is not a “community document” as defined under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)).

2. The Golf Course Owner is a third party over whom the Department lacks jurisdiction.

3. Any ruling would affect the rights of this third party and could impact the 2015 settlement agreement from the superior court case.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law

The ALJ’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the Department’s statutory authority.

• REMA is Not a “Community Document”: The judge found that although the REMA references the CC&Rs, it does not meet the legal definition of a community document under A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), which defines them as “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.” The Department’s authority under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) is limited to violations of these specific documents.

• Implication of Third-Party Rights: The decision states that the petitioner’s request to void the amendments “implicates the Golf Course Owner’s interests in its property and may affect the settlement that the Golf Course Owner entered into with Respondent.” The law does not grant the Department “jurisdiction over disputes that implicate the rights of third parties.”

• Petitioner’s Available Remedies: While validating the petitioner’s underlying worries, the judge outlined specific alternative courses of action. The decision states: “Petitioner’s concerns about development of the golf course may be well-founded. However, under applicable statutes, at this time, his available remedies are to elect a board that will better protect members’ interest in maintaining the golf course, to file suit in a judicial forum against Respondent and the Golf Course Owner, or to ask the legislature to amend A.R.S. §§ 33-1802(2) and 32-2199.01(A).”

Final Order and Disposition

Based on the legal conclusions regarding jurisdiction, the case was dismissed.

• ALJ Recommendation: On May 11, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky recommended that the complaint be dismissed.

• Commissioner’s Final Order: On May 11, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner for the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order stating: “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that the petition in this matter be dismissed.”

• Further Action: The Final Order noted that a party may file for a rehearing or review within thirty days, or may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.






Study Guide – 17F-H1716024-REL


Study Guide: Gronlund v. Cottonfields Community Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case Kurt Gronlund v. Cottonfields Community Association (No. 17F-H1716024-REL), focusing on the key legal arguments, governing documents, and the court’s final decision regarding jurisdiction.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided legal documents.

1. Who are the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?

2. What central allegation did the Petitioner make regarding the HOA board’s actions in March 2011?

3. What specific relief did the Petitioner request from the Administrative Court in his petition?

4. Identify the two key legal documents at the heart of the dispute and briefly explain their respective roles.

5. According to REMA Article 12 and CC&Rs Section 14.2, what was the required procedure to amend the use restriction on the golf course property?

6. On what primary grounds did the Respondent, Cottonfields Community Association, file a motion for summary judgment?

7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s key legal conclusion regarding the status of the Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA)?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately find that the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked the jurisdiction to grant the Petitioner’s requested relief?

9. What alternative remedies did the Administrative Law Judge suggest were available to the Petitioner?

10. What was the final outcome of the case as determined by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Kurt Gronlund, a homeowner and member of the Cottonfields Community Association. The Respondent is the Cottonfields Community Association, which is the Homeowners Association (HOA) for the residential development where the Petitioner owns a home.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the HOA board voted 3-2 to unilaterally amend REMA Section 5.1’s use restriction on the golf course property. This action was allegedly taken without the required vote of the approximately 450 eligible class members, which constituted a violation of the governing documents.

3. The Petitioner requested that the court find Amendments 2 and 3 to the REMA to be void and unenforceable, order the HOA Board to remove these amendments from the public record, and issue a finding that REMA 5.1 may not be amended without the member vote required by the CC&Rs.

4. The key documents are the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA). The CC&Rs are the primary governing documents for the HOA, while the REMA is a separate agreement between the developer/HOA and the Golf Course Owner specifically governing the use of the golf course property.

5. REMA Article 12 required that any amendment to Section 5.1 (the use restriction) receive written approval from the number of Members specified in the CC&Rs. CC&Rs Section 14.2 stipulates this requires an affirmative vote or written consent of members holding at least two-thirds (2/3) of all Class A and Class B votes.

6. The Respondent argued that the Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter. This argument was based on two points: the REMA was not a “community document” as defined by Arizona statute, and the dispute involved the rights of the Golf Course Owner, a third party over whom the Department had no authority.

7. The Judge concluded that although the REMA references the CC&Rs, it is not a “community document” as defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2). This determination was central to the case, as the Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes concerning community documents.

8. The Department’s jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) does not extend to disputes that implicate the rights of third parties. Because the Petitioner’s request would affect the property interests of the Golf Course Owner and a 2015 legal settlement, the Department was not statutorily authorized to resolve the issue.

9. The Judge suggested three potential remedies: elect a new HOA board that will better protect members’ interests, file a lawsuit in a judicial forum against both the HOA and the Golf Course Owner, or ask the state legislature to amend the relevant statutes governing HOAs and community documents.

10. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation in a Final Order dated May 11, 2017. The Commissioner accepted the decision that the Department lacked jurisdiction and ordered that the Petitioner’s complaint be dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the distinction between a “community document” and the REMA as presented in this case. Why was this distinction the pivotal point in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to recommend dismissal for lack of jurisdiction?

2. Discuss the procedural history of the dispute over the golf course property, beginning with the REMA amendments in 2011 and including the 2014 litigation, the 2015 settlement, and the 2016 rezoning. How did these prior events impact the arguments and outcome of Gronlund’s 2017 petition?

3. Explain the conflict between the powers granted to the HOA Board and Golf Course Owner in REMA Article 12 and the protections afforded to homeowners in the same article’s reference to CC&Rs Section 14.2. How did the Petitioner and Respondent interpret these clauses differently?

4. Evaluate the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over third parties like the Golf Course Owner. Why would resolving Gronlund’s petition necessarily implicate the rights of this third party?

5. The Judge outlines three potential remedies for the Petitioner: electoral, judicial, and legislative. Describe each of these remedies and discuss the potential challenges and benefits of each path in seeking to protect the golf course from development.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over administrative hearings at a government agency, in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The ALJ in this matter was Diane Mihalsky.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of all the laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. Specific statutes, such as A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) and § 33-1802(2), were central to this case.

CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions)

The primary governing legal documents for a planned community or homeowners’ association that outline the rules and member obligations.

Commissioner

The head of a government department. In this case, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued the Final Order.

Community Documents

As defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), these include a planned community’s declaration (CC&Rs), bylaws, articles of incorporation, and rules. The REMA was determined not to fall under this definition.

Dismissed with Prejudice

A legal term for a final judgment that prevents the plaintiff from filing another case on the same claim. The 2014 lawsuit between the HOA and the Golf Course Owner was dismissed with prejudice.

Golf Course Owner

A separate legal entity that owned the golf course property and was a primary party to the REMA, but was not a party to this administrative case.

• HOA (Homeowners Association) | An organization in a subdivision or planned community that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Cottonfields Community Association. | | Jurisdiction | The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The central legal issue of the case was whether the Arizona Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction over the dispute. | | Motion for Summary Judgment | A request made by a party asking the court to decide a case in their favor without a full trial, arguing that there are no material facts in dispute and that they are entitled to win as a matter of law. | | Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) | An independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies to ensure fair and impartial decisions. | | Petitioner | The party who files a petition or brings an action before a court or administrative body. In this case, Kurt Gronlund. | | REMA (Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement) | A recorded legal agreement between the original developer/HOA and the Golf Course Owner that established mutual rights, easements, and obligations, including the critical use restriction on the golf course property. | | Respondent | The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Cottonfields Community Association. |






Blog Post – 17F-H1716024-REL



⚖️

17F-H1716024-REL

2 sources

The provided sources consist of an Administrative Law Judge Decision and a subsequent Final Order from the Arizona Department of Real Estate concerning a dispute between homeowner Kurt Gronlund, the Petitioner, and the Cottonfields Community Association, the Respondent. The administrative law judge recommended granting the Association’s motion for summary judgment because the Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over the matter, a recommendation which the Commissioner ultimately accepted. The core of the conflict was Gronlund’s petition challenging the Association’s 2011 amendments to a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA), which governed the use of a golf course adjacent to the community. The decision clarified that the REMA was not classified as a “community document” under the relevant statutes, and furthermore, the requested relief would improperly implicate the rights of the Golf Course Owner, a third party over whom the Department had no authority. The final ruling therefore dismissed the petition, suggesting judicial action or legislative change as alternative remedies for the petitioner.



Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kurt Gronlund (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Troy B. Stratman (attorney)
    Stratman Law Firm, PLC

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Responsible for processing rehearing requests and listed on ADRE service email list.
  • LDettorre (administrative staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed (LDettorre@azre.gov)
  • djones (administrative staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed (djones@azre.gov)
  • jmarshall (administrative staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed (jmarshall@azre.gov)
  • ncano (administrative staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed (ncano@azre.gov)

Kurt Gronlund vs. Cottonfields Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716024-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-05-11
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kurt Gronlund Counsel —
Respondent Cottonfields Community Association Counsel Troy B. Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner accepted the ALJ decision granting the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, recommending dismissal of the petition due to the Department's lack of statutory jurisdiction over the dispute, which involved a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA) and the rights of a third-party Golf Course Owner.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute because the REMA was not considered a 'community document' under A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) and the requested relief implicated the rights of a non-party (the Golf Course Owner) over whom the Department has no jurisdiction.

Key Issues & Findings

Jurisdiction over REMA Amendment Dispute

Petitioner sought a finding that REMA Amendments 2 and 3 were void because the HOA board unilaterally amended the REMA without the required member vote (two-thirds majority) as specified in the CC&Rs and REMA, and sought an order for the removal of the amendments from the record.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge recommended granting Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the Complaint.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(2)
  • CC&Rs 14.2
  • REMA Article 12

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, summary judgment, golf course, REMA, third party
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&Rs 14.2
  • REMA 5.1
  • REMA Article 12

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716024-REL Decision – 563660.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:37 (99.8 KB)

17F-H1716024-REL Decision – 568840.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:38 (854.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716024-REL


Briefing Document: Gronlund vs. Cottonfields Community Association (Case No. 17F-H1716024-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and decision in the case of Kurt Gronlund versus the Cottonfields Community Association, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centers on the petitioner’s allegation that the Homeowners Association (HOA) board improperly amended a critical land-use agreement in 2011 without a required vote of the membership, ultimately enabling the commercial rezoning of an adjacent golf course.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the HOA’s motion for summary judgment, and the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted this decision, dismissing the petition. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the petitioner’s claim but on a crucial lack of jurisdiction. The ALJ determined that the Department of Real Estate could not rule on the matter for two primary reasons:

1. The governing agreement in question (the REMA) is not a “community document” as defined by the relevant Arizona statute, placing it outside the Department’s purview.

2. The relief sought by the petitioner would directly implicate the property rights of a third party (the Golf Course Owner) and a prior legal settlement, which exceeds the Department’s statutory authority.

While acknowledging the petitioner’s concerns about the golf course development may be “well-founded,” the decision concluded that the petitioner’s available remedies lie in electing a new HOA board, filing a lawsuit in a judicial forum, or seeking legislative change.

Case Overview

This case involves a dispute between a homeowner and his HOA regarding the amendment of a land-use agreement governing a golf course property.

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Description

Petitioner

Kurt Gronlund

A homeowner within the Cottonfields community and a member of the Respondent association.

Respondent

Cottonfields Community Association

The Homeowners Association (HOA) for the Cottonfields development.

Third Party

The Golf Course Owner

A separate legal entity that owns the golf course property adjacent to the community.

Case Chronology

• December 11, 2001: The developer records both the Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA) and the community’s CC&Rs.

• March 2011: The Cottonfields HOA board votes 3-2 to amend the REMA.

• March 3 & May 16, 2011: Amendments 2 and 3 to the REMA, which alter the legal description of the golf course property, are officially recorded.

• 2014: Litigation (Case No. CV2014-000639) begins in Maricopa County Superior Court between the HOA and the Golf Course Owner regarding the REMA and its amendments.

• July 2015: The HOA and the Golf Course Owner execute a settlement agreement.

• August 7, 2015: The superior court lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice.

• October 5, 2016: The HOA president represents to the City Council that homeowners favor rezoning the golf course. The Council approves a rezone from “GC” (Golf Course) to Commercial, relying on the 2011 REMA amendments.

• February 3, 2017: Kurt Gronlund files a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• April 27, 2017: The HOA files a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing a lack of jurisdiction.

• May 10, 2017: Oral arguments on the motion are held.

• May 11, 2017: The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision recommending dismissal.

• May 11, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issues a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision and dismissing the case.

Core Dispute: Unilateral Amendment of the REMA

The petitioner’s case is founded on the claim that the HOA board acted in violation of its own governing documents when it facilitated changes to the REMA without consulting the community’s homeowners.

Petitioner’s Allegations

On February 3, 2017, Kurt Gronlund filed a petition asserting that the HOA board’s actions in 2011 were illegal and directly led to the loss of protection for homeowner property values.

• The Unilateral Action: The petition states, “[In] March 2011 the HOA board voted 3-2 to unilaterally amend REMA 5.1’s use restriction on the golf course property without the required vote of the approximately 450 eligible class members…”

• The Consequence: These amendments were used as justification for the HOA president to support a commercial rezoning of the golf course property before the City Council on October 5, 2016. The petitioner argues this “stripped away that last layer of protection” for homeowners who believed the golf course could not be developed without their approval.

• Homeowner Reliance: During oral arguments, the petitioner testified that members relied on the protections within the CC&Rs and REMA when purchasing their homes, believing development required a two-thirds majority vote.

Petitioner’s Requested Relief

The petitioner respectfully requested that the Administrative Court issue the following orders:

1. Find that REMA Section 5.1 may not be amended without the member vote required by REMA Article 12 and CC&Rs Section 14.2.

2. Find that Amendments 2 and 3 to the REMA are void and unenforceable.

3. Order the HOA Board to remove Amendments 2 and 3 from the public record.

Analysis of Governing Document Provisions

The dispute hinges on the interpretation of and interaction between two key legal documents: the REMA and the HOA’s CC&Rs.

Document

Section

Description

Key Language

Section 5.1

Use Restriction: Restricts the golf course property’s use to either a golf course or open space.

“The Golf Course Property shall be used solely and exclusively for Golf Course Use or as open space, and for no other purposes.”

Article 12

Amendment Procedure: Stipulates that changes to Section 5.1 require the same member vote as an amendment to the HOA’s Declaration (CC&Rs).

“…no termination, cancellation, change, modification or amendment of paragraph 5.1… shall be made without the written approval thereof by the number of Members… required to amend the Declaration pursuant to Section 13.2 thereof.”

Section 14.2

Member Vote Requirement: Defines the threshold for amending the CC&Rs.

“…may be amended only by the affirmative vote (in person or by proxy) or written consent of: (a) Members holding not less than two-thirds (2/3) of all Class A votes then entitled to be cast; and (b) Members holding not less than two thirds (2/3) of all Class B votes…”

Section 14.17

Third-Party Rights: Protects the rights of the Golf Course Owner, stating that provisions benefiting them cannot be amended without their written consent.

“…no provision of this Declaration… which grants to or confers upon the Golf Course Owner or the Golf Course Property any rights… shall be modified, amended or revoked in any way without the express written consent of the Golf Course Owner.”

Jurisdictional Challenge and Legal Rationale for Dismissal

The HOA’s defense focused not on the factual allegations but on the argument that the Department of Real Estate was the improper forum for this dispute. The ALJ ultimately agreed with this position.

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The Cottonfields Community Association argued that the Department could not grant the petitioner’s requested relief because:

1. The REMA is not a “community document” as defined under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)).

2. The Golf Course Owner is a third party over whom the Department lacks jurisdiction.

3. Any ruling would affect the rights of this third party and could impact the 2015 settlement agreement from the superior court case.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law

The ALJ’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the Department’s statutory authority.

• REMA is Not a “Community Document”: The judge found that although the REMA references the CC&Rs, it does not meet the legal definition of a community document under A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), which defines them as “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.” The Department’s authority under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) is limited to violations of these specific documents.

• Implication of Third-Party Rights: The decision states that the petitioner’s request to void the amendments “implicates the Golf Course Owner’s interests in its property and may affect the settlement that the Golf Course Owner entered into with Respondent.” The law does not grant the Department “jurisdiction over disputes that implicate the rights of third parties.”

• Petitioner’s Available Remedies: While validating the petitioner’s underlying worries, the judge outlined specific alternative courses of action. The decision states: “Petitioner’s concerns about development of the golf course may be well-founded. However, under applicable statutes, at this time, his available remedies are to elect a board that will better protect members’ interest in maintaining the golf course, to file suit in a judicial forum against Respondent and the Golf Course Owner, or to ask the legislature to amend A.R.S. §§ 33-1802(2) and 32-2199.01(A).”

Final Order and Disposition

Based on the legal conclusions regarding jurisdiction, the case was dismissed.

• ALJ Recommendation: On May 11, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky recommended that the complaint be dismissed.

• Commissioner’s Final Order: On May 11, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner for the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order stating: “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that the petition in this matter be dismissed.”

• Further Action: The Final Order noted that a party may file for a rehearing or review within thirty days, or may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.


John Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John Sellers Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA complied with A.R.S. § 33-1258 by providing documents related to expenditures, and was not required to provide bank signature cards or read-only online access credentials.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 because the statute does not require the association to provide records (like signature cards or usernames/passwords) which are not financial records showing actual expenditures and are often held by the financial institution.

Key Issues & Findings

Association financial and other records; applicability

Petitioner, a member of the HOA, alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing access to bank account signature cards and read-only user names/passwords. The ALJ found that these items were not 'financial and other records' that the association was statutorily required to provide, as they related to mechanisms for disbursement rather than actual expenditure, and would be maintained by the bank, not the association.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied and dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Condominium Act, Access to Records, Financial Records, Bank Records
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 549566.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:15 (60.9 KB)

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 554490.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:16 (88.6 KB)

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 558591.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:17 (757.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716021-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The core of the dispute was Petitioner John Sellers’s allegation that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by refusing to produce specific records: bank account signature cards and read-only online banking credentials for the association’s account with Mutual of Omaha.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately recommended the petition be denied, a decision that was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The ruling hinged on a narrow interpretation of the statute. The ALJ concluded that the requested items were not “financial and other records of the association” as required by law. Key findings supporting this conclusion were:

• Custody: The signature cards, if they exist, are records held by the bank (Mutual of Omaha), not the association.

• Nature of Request: Online user names and passwords constitute “information,” not a “document” or “record” in the statutory sense.

• Sufficient Disclosure: The association had already provided a comprehensive set of financial documents (bank statements, contracts, resolutions, etc.) sufficient for a member to ascertain whether the association was prudently managing its funds, thereby satisfying the plain-meaning purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

The petitioner’s arguments that such records must exist under federal banking regulations and that electronic access is superior to paper records were deemed policy arguments to be addressed to the legislature, not grounds for finding a statutory violation.

Case Overview

Case Name

John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent

Case Number

No. 17F-H1716021-REL (also listed as DOCKET NO. 17F-H1716021-REL and CASE NO. HO 17-16/021)

Petitioner

John Sellers (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq., Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Reviewing Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Core Allegation and Legal Framework

Petitioner’s Claim

On or about December 20, 2016, John Sellers, a condominium owner and member of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide two specific items related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha:

1. Bank account signature cards.

2. Read-only user names and passwords for online access to the account.

Sellers argued that these documents must exist, citing federal banking statutes and regulations intended to combat terrorism.

Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258

The case revolved around the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, “Association financial and other records.” The key provisions of this statute state:

• A. Right to Examine: “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”

• Timeline: An association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination and ten business days to provide copies upon request.

• Fees: An association may charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.

• B. Withholdable Records: The statute allows an association to withhold records related to:

1. Privileged attorney-client communication.

2. Pending litigation.

3. Records of board meetings not required to be open to all members.

4. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.

5. Records related to job performance or complaints against employees.

• C. Legal Prohibitions: An association is not required to disclose records if doing so would violate state or federal law.

The Uniform Condominium Act, of which this statute is a part, does not provide a more specific definition of “financial and other records.”

Factual Findings and Evidence Presented

Records Provided by the Association

Prior to the hearing, the Respondent had already provided the Petitioner with a substantial volume of financial records. Emails attached to the initial petition indicated that the following documents were furnished:

• All bank statements

• Account opening documentation

• Forms for members’ direct debit authorizations

• The Board’s resolution authorizing the opening of the bank account

• Agreements between the property management company, Trestle Management Group, and Mutual of Omaha regarding fees, indemnities, and netting

• The association’s insurance certificate

• The association’s management contract with Trestle Management Group

Witness Testimony

A hearing was held on March 7, 2017, where testimony was presented by both parties.

• Petitioner’s Testimony: John Sellers testified on his own behalf and submitted ten exhibits.

• Respondent’s Witnesses:

◦ Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group): Testified that all signature cards for the association’s bank accounts were held by the bank at which the accounts were opened. He stated that Mutual of Omaha was the custodian of those cards.

◦ Alan Simpson (Vice President of Respondent’s Board) & Marc Kaplan (President of Respondent’s Board): Both testified that they did not have user names and passwords for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. They believed, however, that the association’s treasurer may have had such credentials to access the account online.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was based on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the evidence presented.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that “convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Statutory Interpretation: The ALJ determined that the “plain meaning” of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is to provide members with access to documents that allow them to “ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments.” The decision explicitly states that the numerous documents already provided by the Respondent fulfilled this purpose.

• Custody and Control: A central finding was that the requested items were not “records of the association.” The signature cards were records held and maintained by a third party, Mutual of Omaha. The statute does not compel an association to produce records that are not in its possession or under its control.

• Information vs. Documents: The decision drew a distinction between records and information, stating, “The user names and passwords are information, not a document.” Furthermore, it noted that these items “do not relate to Respondent’s actual expenditure of members’ assessments” but rather to the mechanisms for disbursing funds.

• Scope of the Statute: The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not require an association to “create, maintain, or provide this information or documentation to Petitioner, either to serve his convenience or to allow him to ascertain Respondent’s or Mutual of Omaha’s compliance with federal banking statutes that are not incorporated in the Uniform Condominium Act.”

• Policy Arguments: The Petitioner’s contention that “paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access” was dismissed as “a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The statute only requires that records be made “reasonably available,” which the Respondent had done.

Procedural History and Final Outcome

c. Dec. 20, 2016

John Sellers files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Mar. 7, 2017

An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky. An order is issued holding the record open for the parties to submit legal memoranda regarding the scope of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Mar. 21, 2017

The deadline for submitting legal memoranda passes, and the record on the matter is closed.

Mar. 29, 2017

ALJ Diane Mihalsky issues the “Administrative Law Judge Decision,” which includes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommended Order to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Mar. 30, 2017

Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a “Final Order.” This order formally accepts and adopts the ALJ’s decision, and the petition is denied.

The Final Order, effective immediately upon service, represented the final administrative action in the matter. The order noted that parties could file a motion for rehearing within 30 days or appeal the final administrative decision through judicial review.


John Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John Sellers Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA complied with A.R.S. § 33-1258 by providing documents related to expenditures, and was not required to provide bank signature cards or read-only online access credentials.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 because the statute does not require the association to provide records (like signature cards or usernames/passwords) which are not financial records showing actual expenditures and are often held by the financial institution.

Key Issues & Findings

Association financial and other records; applicability

Petitioner, a member of the HOA, alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing access to bank account signature cards and read-only user names/passwords. The ALJ found that these items were not 'financial and other records' that the association was statutorily required to provide, as they related to mechanisms for disbursement rather than actual expenditure, and would be maintained by the bank, not the association.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied and dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Condominium Act, Access to Records, Financial Records, Bank Records
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 549566.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:16 (60.9 KB)

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 554490.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:16 (88.6 KB)

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 558591.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:16 (757.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716021-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The core of the dispute was Petitioner John Sellers’s allegation that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by refusing to produce specific records: bank account signature cards and read-only online banking credentials for the association’s account with Mutual of Omaha.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately recommended the petition be denied, a decision that was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The ruling hinged on a narrow interpretation of the statute. The ALJ concluded that the requested items were not “financial and other records of the association” as required by law. Key findings supporting this conclusion were:

• Custody: The signature cards, if they exist, are records held by the bank (Mutual of Omaha), not the association.

• Nature of Request: Online user names and passwords constitute “information,” not a “document” or “record” in the statutory sense.

• Sufficient Disclosure: The association had already provided a comprehensive set of financial documents (bank statements, contracts, resolutions, etc.) sufficient for a member to ascertain whether the association was prudently managing its funds, thereby satisfying the plain-meaning purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

The petitioner’s arguments that such records must exist under federal banking regulations and that electronic access is superior to paper records were deemed policy arguments to be addressed to the legislature, not grounds for finding a statutory violation.

Case Overview

Case Name

John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent

Case Number

No. 17F-H1716021-REL (also listed as DOCKET NO. 17F-H1716021-REL and CASE NO. HO 17-16/021)

Petitioner

John Sellers (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq., Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Reviewing Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Core Allegation and Legal Framework

Petitioner’s Claim

On or about December 20, 2016, John Sellers, a condominium owner and member of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide two specific items related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha:

1. Bank account signature cards.

2. Read-only user names and passwords for online access to the account.

Sellers argued that these documents must exist, citing federal banking statutes and regulations intended to combat terrorism.

Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258

The case revolved around the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, “Association financial and other records.” The key provisions of this statute state:

• A. Right to Examine: “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”

• Timeline: An association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination and ten business days to provide copies upon request.

• Fees: An association may charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.

• B. Withholdable Records: The statute allows an association to withhold records related to:

1. Privileged attorney-client communication.

2. Pending litigation.

3. Records of board meetings not required to be open to all members.

4. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.

5. Records related to job performance or complaints against employees.

• C. Legal Prohibitions: An association is not required to disclose records if doing so would violate state or federal law.

The Uniform Condominium Act, of which this statute is a part, does not provide a more specific definition of “financial and other records.”

Factual Findings and Evidence Presented

Records Provided by the Association

Prior to the hearing, the Respondent had already provided the Petitioner with a substantial volume of financial records. Emails attached to the initial petition indicated that the following documents were furnished:

• All bank statements

• Account opening documentation

• Forms for members’ direct debit authorizations

• The Board’s resolution authorizing the opening of the bank account

• Agreements between the property management company, Trestle Management Group, and Mutual of Omaha regarding fees, indemnities, and netting

• The association’s insurance certificate

• The association’s management contract with Trestle Management Group

Witness Testimony

A hearing was held on March 7, 2017, where testimony was presented by both parties.

• Petitioner’s Testimony: John Sellers testified on his own behalf and submitted ten exhibits.

• Respondent’s Witnesses:

◦ Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group): Testified that all signature cards for the association’s bank accounts were held by the bank at which the accounts were opened. He stated that Mutual of Omaha was the custodian of those cards.

◦ Alan Simpson (Vice President of Respondent’s Board) & Marc Kaplan (President of Respondent’s Board): Both testified that they did not have user names and passwords for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. They believed, however, that the association’s treasurer may have had such credentials to access the account online.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was based on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the evidence presented.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that “convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Statutory Interpretation: The ALJ determined that the “plain meaning” of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is to provide members with access to documents that allow them to “ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments.” The decision explicitly states that the numerous documents already provided by the Respondent fulfilled this purpose.

• Custody and Control: A central finding was that the requested items were not “records of the association.” The signature cards were records held and maintained by a third party, Mutual of Omaha. The statute does not compel an association to produce records that are not in its possession or under its control.

• Information vs. Documents: The decision drew a distinction between records and information, stating, “The user names and passwords are information, not a document.” Furthermore, it noted that these items “do not relate to Respondent’s actual expenditure of members’ assessments” but rather to the mechanisms for disbursing funds.

• Scope of the Statute: The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not require an association to “create, maintain, or provide this information or documentation to Petitioner, either to serve his convenience or to allow him to ascertain Respondent’s or Mutual of Omaha’s compliance with federal banking statutes that are not incorporated in the Uniform Condominium Act.”

• Policy Arguments: The Petitioner’s contention that “paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access” was dismissed as “a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The statute only requires that records be made “reasonably available,” which the Respondent had done.

Procedural History and Final Outcome

c. Dec. 20, 2016

John Sellers files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Mar. 7, 2017

An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky. An order is issued holding the record open for the parties to submit legal memoranda regarding the scope of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Mar. 21, 2017

The deadline for submitting legal memoranda passes, and the record on the matter is closed.

Mar. 29, 2017

ALJ Diane Mihalsky issues the “Administrative Law Judge Decision,” which includes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommended Order to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Mar. 30, 2017

Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a “Final Order.” This order formally accepts and adopts the ALJ’s decision, and the petition is denied.

The Final Order, effective immediately upon service, represented the final administrative action in the matter. The order noted that parties could file a motion for rehearing within 30 days or appeal the final administrative decision through judicial review.






Study Guide – 17F-H1716021-REL


Study Guide:Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Case No. 17F-H1716021-REL. It covers the key parties, legal arguments, statutory interpretations, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner, John Sellers, against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association?

2. Identify the specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) that formed the basis of the legal dispute and summarize its primary requirement for homeowners’ associations.

3. What specific documents or information did John Sellers request that the association refused to provide?

4. In its defense, what was the association’s stated reason for not producing the requested items?

5. List the documents that the association did provide to the Petitioner prior to the hearing.

6. Who testified on behalf of the Respondent association at the March 7, 2017 hearing?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguish between “information” and “documents” in her legal conclusions?

8. What is the “burden of proof” in this case, and which party was responsible for meeting it?

9. What was the final outcome of the petition as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and subsequently adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

10. According to the ALJ’s decision, what is the plain meaning and purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner, John Sellers, alleged that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258. The specific violation was the association’s refusal to provide him with certain records related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha.

2. The statute at the center of the dispute was A.R.S. § 33-1258, titled “Association financial and other records.” This statute generally requires that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

3. John Sellers requested bank account signature cards for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. He also requested read-only user names and passwords for online access to that same account.

4. The association denied the request because it asserted that the requested documents and information either did not exist or were not included in the association’s records. It was testified that the signature cards were held by the bank, Mutual of Omaha, as their custodian.

5. The association provided copies of all bank statements, account opening documentation, direct debit authorization forms, the Board’s resolution to open the account, agreements between its management company (Trestle) and the bank, its insurance certificate, and its management contract with Trestle.

6. Three witnesses testified for the Respondent: Alan Simpson (Vice President of the Board), Marc Kaplan (President of the Board), and Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group).

7. The ALJ concluded that the requested user names and passwords constituted “information,” not a “document” as covered by the statute. She further reasoned that neither the signature cards nor the online credentials related to the actual expenditure of funds, but rather to the mechanisms for disbursement, and were maintained by the bank, not the association.

8. The burden of proof rested on the Petitioner, John Sellers, to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

9. The Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended order denying the Petitioner’s petition. This decision was then adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate in a Final Order, formally denying the petition and making the decision binding on the parties.

10. The ALJ determined the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is that associations must provide members with access to documents that allow them to ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments. The judge noted that arguments for different types of access (e.g., electronic vs. paper) are policy arguments that should be addressed to the Legislature.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based on the facts, legal reasoning, and conclusions presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of “financial and other records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258. How did this interpretation, particularly the distinction between disbursement mechanisms and actual expenditures, lead to the denial of John Sellers’ petition?

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioner, according to the ALJ’s findings, failed to meet this standard.

3. Trace the procedural timeline of the case from the initial petition filed around December 20, 2016, to the Final Order dated March 30, 2017. Identify the key legal bodies involved (Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of Real Estate) and their respective roles in the process.

4. Evaluate the Petitioner’s argument that federal banking statutes and regulations intended to fight terrorism necessitated the existence and disclosure of the requested records. Why was this argument ultimately unpersuasive to the court?

5. Examine the exceptions to disclosure outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B). Although not the central issue in the final decision, explain how these exceptions frame the limits of a homeowner’s right to association records.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions or recommended orders. In this case, Diane Mihalsky served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The specific Arizona Revised Statute at the heart of the case, part of the Uniform Condominium Act. It governs a homeowner association’s duty to make its “financial and other records” available for examination by members.

Burden of Proof

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

Commissioner

The head of a government department. In this case, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, adopted the ALJ’s decision and issued the Final Order.

Evidentiary Hearing

A formal proceeding where parties present evidence (such as documents and testimony) before a judge or hearing officer. The hearing in this case was held on March 7, 2017.

Final Order

A binding decision issued by an administrative agency that concludes a case. In this matter, the Final Order was issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on March 30, 2017, denying the petition.

Homeowners’ Association

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium development that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, John Sellers.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, establishing that a claim is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.

Trestle Management Group (“Trestle”)

The property management company for the Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The Vice President of Trestle, Marc Vasquez, testified at the hearing.

Uniform Condominium Act

The section of Arizona law (Chapter 9 of Title 33, Arizona Revised Statutes) that governs condominiums. A.R.S. § 33-1258 is part of this act.






Blog Post – 17F-H1716021-REL



⚖️

17F-H1716021-REL

3 sources

These sources document the administrative legal proceedings of a dispute between John Sellers (Petitioner) and the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue of the case, No. 17F-H1716021-REL, was the Association’s alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide bank account signature cards and read-only user credentials for online access to their bank account. The initial order, dated March 7, 2017, held the record open to allow both parties to submit legal memoranda concerning the scope of corporate records required under the statute. The subsequent Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding that the requested items were not considered financial records the association was legally required to create, maintain, or disclose. Finally, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ Decision as a Final Order on March 30, 2017.



Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Alan Simpson (board member/witness)
    Rancho Madera Condominium Association
    Vice President of Respondent's board
  • Marc Kaplan (board member/witness)
    Rancho Madera Condominium Association
    President of Respondent's Board
  • Marc Vasquez (property manager/witness)
    Trestle Management Group
    Vice President of Trestle
  • Annette Graham (attorney staff)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Derived from email address (Annette.graham)

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Also listed as AHansen

Other Participants

  • M. Johnson (clerical staff)
    Signatory on document transmission
  • LDettorre (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient
  • jmarshall (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient
  • ncano (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient

John Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John Sellers Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA complied with A.R.S. § 33-1258 by providing documents related to expenditures, and was not required to provide bank signature cards or read-only online access credentials.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 because the statute does not require the association to provide records (like signature cards or usernames/passwords) which are not financial records showing actual expenditures and are often held by the financial institution.

Key Issues & Findings

Association financial and other records; applicability

Petitioner, a member of the HOA, alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing access to bank account signature cards and read-only user names/passwords. The ALJ found that these items were not 'financial and other records' that the association was statutorily required to provide, as they related to mechanisms for disbursement rather than actual expenditure, and would be maintained by the bank, not the association.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied and dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Condominium Act, Access to Records, Financial Records, Bank Records
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 549566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:18:59 (60.9 KB)

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 554490.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:02 (88.6 KB)

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 558591.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:05 (757.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716021-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The core of the dispute was Petitioner John Sellers’s allegation that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by refusing to produce specific records: bank account signature cards and read-only online banking credentials for the association’s account with Mutual of Omaha.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately recommended the petition be denied, a decision that was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The ruling hinged on a narrow interpretation of the statute. The ALJ concluded that the requested items were not “financial and other records of the association” as required by law. Key findings supporting this conclusion were:

• Custody: The signature cards, if they exist, are records held by the bank (Mutual of Omaha), not the association.

• Nature of Request: Online user names and passwords constitute “information,” not a “document” or “record” in the statutory sense.

• Sufficient Disclosure: The association had already provided a comprehensive set of financial documents (bank statements, contracts, resolutions, etc.) sufficient for a member to ascertain whether the association was prudently managing its funds, thereby satisfying the plain-meaning purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

The petitioner’s arguments that such records must exist under federal banking regulations and that electronic access is superior to paper records were deemed policy arguments to be addressed to the legislature, not grounds for finding a statutory violation.

Case Overview

Case Name

John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent

Case Number

No. 17F-H1716021-REL (also listed as DOCKET NO. 17F-H1716021-REL and CASE NO. HO 17-16/021)

Petitioner

John Sellers (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq., Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Reviewing Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Core Allegation and Legal Framework

Petitioner’s Claim

On or about December 20, 2016, John Sellers, a condominium owner and member of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide two specific items related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha:

1. Bank account signature cards.

2. Read-only user names and passwords for online access to the account.

Sellers argued that these documents must exist, citing federal banking statutes and regulations intended to combat terrorism.

Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258

The case revolved around the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, “Association financial and other records.” The key provisions of this statute state:

• A. Right to Examine: “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”

• Timeline: An association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination and ten business days to provide copies upon request.

• Fees: An association may charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.

• B. Withholdable Records: The statute allows an association to withhold records related to:

1. Privileged attorney-client communication.

2. Pending litigation.

3. Records of board meetings not required to be open to all members.

4. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.

5. Records related to job performance or complaints against employees.

• C. Legal Prohibitions: An association is not required to disclose records if doing so would violate state or federal law.

The Uniform Condominium Act, of which this statute is a part, does not provide a more specific definition of “financial and other records.”

Factual Findings and Evidence Presented

Records Provided by the Association

Prior to the hearing, the Respondent had already provided the Petitioner with a substantial volume of financial records. Emails attached to the initial petition indicated that the following documents were furnished:

• All bank statements

• Account opening documentation

• Forms for members’ direct debit authorizations

• The Board’s resolution authorizing the opening of the bank account

• Agreements between the property management company, Trestle Management Group, and Mutual of Omaha regarding fees, indemnities, and netting

• The association’s insurance certificate

• The association’s management contract with Trestle Management Group

Witness Testimony

A hearing was held on March 7, 2017, where testimony was presented by both parties.

• Petitioner’s Testimony: John Sellers testified on his own behalf and submitted ten exhibits.

• Respondent’s Witnesses:

◦ Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group): Testified that all signature cards for the association’s bank accounts were held by the bank at which the accounts were opened. He stated that Mutual of Omaha was the custodian of those cards.

◦ Alan Simpson (Vice President of Respondent’s Board) & Marc Kaplan (President of Respondent’s Board): Both testified that they did not have user names and passwords for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. They believed, however, that the association’s treasurer may have had such credentials to access the account online.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was based on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the evidence presented.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that “convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Statutory Interpretation: The ALJ determined that the “plain meaning” of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is to provide members with access to documents that allow them to “ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments.” The decision explicitly states that the numerous documents already provided by the Respondent fulfilled this purpose.

• Custody and Control: A central finding was that the requested items were not “records of the association.” The signature cards were records held and maintained by a third party, Mutual of Omaha. The statute does not compel an association to produce records that are not in its possession or under its control.

• Information vs. Documents: The decision drew a distinction between records and information, stating, “The user names and passwords are information, not a document.” Furthermore, it noted that these items “do not relate to Respondent’s actual expenditure of members’ assessments” but rather to the mechanisms for disbursing funds.

• Scope of the Statute: The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not require an association to “create, maintain, or provide this information or documentation to Petitioner, either to serve his convenience or to allow him to ascertain Respondent’s or Mutual of Omaha’s compliance with federal banking statutes that are not incorporated in the Uniform Condominium Act.”

• Policy Arguments: The Petitioner’s contention that “paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access” was dismissed as “a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The statute only requires that records be made “reasonably available,” which the Respondent had done.

Procedural History and Final Outcome

c. Dec. 20, 2016

John Sellers files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Mar. 7, 2017

An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky. An order is issued holding the record open for the parties to submit legal memoranda regarding the scope of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Mar. 21, 2017

The deadline for submitting legal memoranda passes, and the record on the matter is closed.

Mar. 29, 2017

ALJ Diane Mihalsky issues the “Administrative Law Judge Decision,” which includes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommended Order to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Mar. 30, 2017

Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a “Final Order.” This order formally accepts and adopts the ALJ’s decision, and the petition is denied.

The Final Order, effective immediately upon service, represented the final administrative action in the matter. The order noted that parties could file a motion for rehearing within 30 days or appeal the final administrative decision through judicial review.






Study Guide – 17F-H1716021-REL


Study Guide:Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Case No. 17F-H1716021-REL. It covers the key parties, legal arguments, statutory interpretations, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner, John Sellers, against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association?

2. Identify the specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) that formed the basis of the legal dispute and summarize its primary requirement for homeowners’ associations.

3. What specific documents or information did John Sellers request that the association refused to provide?

4. In its defense, what was the association’s stated reason for not producing the requested items?

5. List the documents that the association did provide to the Petitioner prior to the hearing.

6. Who testified on behalf of the Respondent association at the March 7, 2017 hearing?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguish between “information” and “documents” in her legal conclusions?

8. What is the “burden of proof” in this case, and which party was responsible for meeting it?

9. What was the final outcome of the petition as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and subsequently adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

10. According to the ALJ’s decision, what is the plain meaning and purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner, John Sellers, alleged that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258. The specific violation was the association’s refusal to provide him with certain records related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha.

2. The statute at the center of the dispute was A.R.S. § 33-1258, titled “Association financial and other records.” This statute generally requires that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

3. John Sellers requested bank account signature cards for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. He also requested read-only user names and passwords for online access to that same account.

4. The association denied the request because it asserted that the requested documents and information either did not exist or were not included in the association’s records. It was testified that the signature cards were held by the bank, Mutual of Omaha, as their custodian.

5. The association provided copies of all bank statements, account opening documentation, direct debit authorization forms, the Board’s resolution to open the account, agreements between its management company (Trestle) and the bank, its insurance certificate, and its management contract with Trestle.

6. Three witnesses testified for the Respondent: Alan Simpson (Vice President of the Board), Marc Kaplan (President of the Board), and Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group).

7. The ALJ concluded that the requested user names and passwords constituted “information,” not a “document” as covered by the statute. She further reasoned that neither the signature cards nor the online credentials related to the actual expenditure of funds, but rather to the mechanisms for disbursement, and were maintained by the bank, not the association.

8. The burden of proof rested on the Petitioner, John Sellers, to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

9. The Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended order denying the Petitioner’s petition. This decision was then adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate in a Final Order, formally denying the petition and making the decision binding on the parties.

10. The ALJ determined the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is that associations must provide members with access to documents that allow them to ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments. The judge noted that arguments for different types of access (e.g., electronic vs. paper) are policy arguments that should be addressed to the Legislature.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based on the facts, legal reasoning, and conclusions presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of “financial and other records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258. How did this interpretation, particularly the distinction between disbursement mechanisms and actual expenditures, lead to the denial of John Sellers’ petition?

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioner, according to the ALJ’s findings, failed to meet this standard.

3. Trace the procedural timeline of the case from the initial petition filed around December 20, 2016, to the Final Order dated March 30, 2017. Identify the key legal bodies involved (Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of Real Estate) and their respective roles in the process.

4. Evaluate the Petitioner’s argument that federal banking statutes and regulations intended to fight terrorism necessitated the existence and disclosure of the requested records. Why was this argument ultimately unpersuasive to the court?

5. Examine the exceptions to disclosure outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B). Although not the central issue in the final decision, explain how these exceptions frame the limits of a homeowner’s right to association records.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions or recommended orders. In this case, Diane Mihalsky served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The specific Arizona Revised Statute at the heart of the case, part of the Uniform Condominium Act. It governs a homeowner association’s duty to make its “financial and other records” available for examination by members.

Burden of Proof

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

Commissioner

The head of a government department. In this case, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, adopted the ALJ’s decision and issued the Final Order.

Evidentiary Hearing

A formal proceeding where parties present evidence (such as documents and testimony) before a judge or hearing officer. The hearing in this case was held on March 7, 2017.

Final Order

A binding decision issued by an administrative agency that concludes a case. In this matter, the Final Order was issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on March 30, 2017, denying the petition.

Homeowners’ Association

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium development that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, John Sellers.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, establishing that a claim is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.

Trestle Management Group (“Trestle”)

The property management company for the Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The Vice President of Trestle, Marc Vasquez, testified at the hearing.

Uniform Condominium Act

The section of Arizona law (Chapter 9 of Title 33, Arizona Revised Statutes) that governs condominiums. A.R.S. § 33-1258 is part of this act.






Blog Post – 17F-H1716021-REL



⚖️

17F-H1716021-REL

3 sources

These sources document the administrative legal proceedings of a dispute between John Sellers (Petitioner) and the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue of the case, No. 17F-H1716021-REL, was the Association’s alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide bank account signature cards and read-only user credentials for online access to their bank account. The initial order, dated March 7, 2017, held the record open to allow both parties to submit legal memoranda concerning the scope of corporate records required under the statute. The subsequent Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding that the requested items were not considered financial records the association was legally required to create, maintain, or disclose. Finally, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ Decision as a Final Order on March 30, 2017.



Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Alan Simpson (board member/witness)
    Rancho Madera Condominium Association
    Vice President of Respondent's board
  • Marc Kaplan (board member/witness)
    Rancho Madera Condominium Association
    President of Respondent's Board
  • Marc Vasquez (property manager/witness)
    Trestle Management Group
    Vice President of Trestle
  • Annette Graham (attorney staff)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Derived from email address (Annette.graham)

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Also listed as AHansen

Other Participants

  • M. Johnson (clerical staff)
    Signatory on document transmission
  • LDettorre (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient
  • jmarshall (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient
  • ncano (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Email recipient

John Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John Sellers Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA complied with A.R.S. § 33-1258 by providing documents related to expenditures, and was not required to provide bank signature cards or read-only online access credentials.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 because the statute does not require the association to provide records (like signature cards or usernames/passwords) which are not financial records showing actual expenditures and are often held by the financial institution.

Key Issues & Findings

Association financial and other records; applicability

Petitioner, a member of the HOA, alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing access to bank account signature cards and read-only user names/passwords. The ALJ found that these items were not 'financial and other records' that the association was statutorily required to provide, as they related to mechanisms for disbursement rather than actual expenditure, and would be maintained by the bank, not the association.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied and dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Condominium Act, Access to Records, Financial Records, Bank Records
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 549566.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:27 (60.9 KB)

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 554490.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:28 (88.6 KB)

17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 558591.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:28 (757.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716021-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The core of the dispute was Petitioner John Sellers’s allegation that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by refusing to produce specific records: bank account signature cards and read-only online banking credentials for the association’s account with Mutual of Omaha.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately recommended the petition be denied, a decision that was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The ruling hinged on a narrow interpretation of the statute. The ALJ concluded that the requested items were not “financial and other records of the association” as required by law. Key findings supporting this conclusion were:

• Custody: The signature cards, if they exist, are records held by the bank (Mutual of Omaha), not the association.

• Nature of Request: Online user names and passwords constitute “information,” not a “document” or “record” in the statutory sense.

• Sufficient Disclosure: The association had already provided a comprehensive set of financial documents (bank statements, contracts, resolutions, etc.) sufficient for a member to ascertain whether the association was prudently managing its funds, thereby satisfying the plain-meaning purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

The petitioner’s arguments that such records must exist under federal banking regulations and that electronic access is superior to paper records were deemed policy arguments to be addressed to the legislature, not grounds for finding a statutory violation.

Case Overview

Case Name

John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent

Case Number

No. 17F-H1716021-REL (also listed as DOCKET NO. 17F-H1716021-REL and CASE NO. HO 17-16/021)

Petitioner

John Sellers (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq., Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Reviewing Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Core Allegation and Legal Framework

Petitioner’s Claim

On or about December 20, 2016, John Sellers, a condominium owner and member of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide two specific items related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha:

1. Bank account signature cards.

2. Read-only user names and passwords for online access to the account.

Sellers argued that these documents must exist, citing federal banking statutes and regulations intended to combat terrorism.

Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258

The case revolved around the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, “Association financial and other records.” The key provisions of this statute state:

• A. Right to Examine: “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”

• Timeline: An association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination and ten business days to provide copies upon request.

• Fees: An association may charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.

• B. Withholdable Records: The statute allows an association to withhold records related to:

1. Privileged attorney-client communication.

2. Pending litigation.

3. Records of board meetings not required to be open to all members.

4. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.

5. Records related to job performance or complaints against employees.

• C. Legal Prohibitions: An association is not required to disclose records if doing so would violate state or federal law.

The Uniform Condominium Act, of which this statute is a part, does not provide a more specific definition of “financial and other records.”

Factual Findings and Evidence Presented

Records Provided by the Association

Prior to the hearing, the Respondent had already provided the Petitioner with a substantial volume of financial records. Emails attached to the initial petition indicated that the following documents were furnished:

• All bank statements

• Account opening documentation

• Forms for members’ direct debit authorizations

• The Board’s resolution authorizing the opening of the bank account

• Agreements between the property management company, Trestle Management Group, and Mutual of Omaha regarding fees, indemnities, and netting

• The association’s insurance certificate

• The association’s management contract with Trestle Management Group

Witness Testimony

A hearing was held on March 7, 2017, where testimony was presented by both parties.

• Petitioner’s Testimony: John Sellers testified on his own behalf and submitted ten exhibits.

• Respondent’s Witnesses:

◦ Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group): Testified that all signature cards for the association’s bank accounts were held by the bank at which the accounts were opened. He stated that Mutual of Omaha was the custodian of those cards.

◦ Alan Simpson (Vice President of Respondent’s Board) & Marc Kaplan (President of Respondent’s Board): Both testified that they did not have user names and passwords for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. They believed, however, that the association’s treasurer may have had such credentials to access the account online.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was based on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the evidence presented.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that “convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Statutory Interpretation: The ALJ determined that the “plain meaning” of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is to provide members with access to documents that allow them to “ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments.” The decision explicitly states that the numerous documents already provided by the Respondent fulfilled this purpose.

• Custody and Control: A central finding was that the requested items were not “records of the association.” The signature cards were records held and maintained by a third party, Mutual of Omaha. The statute does not compel an association to produce records that are not in its possession or under its control.

• Information vs. Documents: The decision drew a distinction between records and information, stating, “The user names and passwords are information, not a document.” Furthermore, it noted that these items “do not relate to Respondent’s actual expenditure of members’ assessments” but rather to the mechanisms for disbursing funds.

• Scope of the Statute: The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not require an association to “create, maintain, or provide this information or documentation to Petitioner, either to serve his convenience or to allow him to ascertain Respondent’s or Mutual of Omaha’s compliance with federal banking statutes that are not incorporated in the Uniform Condominium Act.”

• Policy Arguments: The Petitioner’s contention that “paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access” was dismissed as “a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The statute only requires that records be made “reasonably available,” which the Respondent had done.

Procedural History and Final Outcome

c. Dec. 20, 2016

John Sellers files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Mar. 7, 2017

An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky. An order is issued holding the record open for the parties to submit legal memoranda regarding the scope of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Mar. 21, 2017

The deadline for submitting legal memoranda passes, and the record on the matter is closed.

Mar. 29, 2017

ALJ Diane Mihalsky issues the “Administrative Law Judge Decision,” which includes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommended Order to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Mar. 30, 2017

Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a “Final Order.” This order formally accepts and adopts the ALJ’s decision, and the petition is denied.

The Final Order, effective immediately upon service, represented the final administrative action in the matter. The order noted that parties could file a motion for rehearing within 30 days or appeal the final administrative decision through judicial review.


Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-14
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thomson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was granted. The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by invalidly adopting the 'Declaration of Scrivener's Error' (Exhibit C) as an amendment without the required lot owner vote. However, the $10.00 annual increased assessment that Petitioner objected to was permitted to stand because the authority for differential assessments was established by the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, independent of the invalid Exhibit C. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner objected to the increased assessment resulting from Exhibit C, but the Tribunal determined that Respondent had the right to impose the increased assessment pursuant to the language of Section 6.8 in the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, regardless of the invalidity of Exhibit C.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Amendment of Declaration (Declaration of Scrivener's Error)

Petitioner claimed Respondent HOA improperly adopted a Declaration of Scrivener's Error (Exhibit C) to revise the definition of developed/undeveloped lots, arguing it was a substantive amendment requiring a 75% lot owner vote, which Respondent failed to obtain.

Orders: The Tribunal found that Exhibit C constituted an amendment and Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by adopting it without a vote. Exhibit C was deemed invalid, but this invalidity did not nullify the subsequent assessment increase, which was authorized by a prior, valid declaration amendment. Respondent was ordered to refund the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Declaration Amendment, Scrivener's Error, Assessments, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 551057.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:11 (83.7 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 559875.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:12 (794.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716019-REL


Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative legal dispute between petitioner Jay Janicek and respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (HOA), culminating in the case No. 17F-H1716019-REL. The core of the conflict was the HOA Board’s attempt to amend its governing Declaration via a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” without the required 75% vote from lot owners. This action was intended to reinsert a definition of “Completed Lots” that had been omitted from a 2009 amendment and was followed by a $10 annual assessment increase on developed lots.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting his petition and invalidating the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.” The judge found that the change was a substantive amendment, not a correction of a clerical error, and the Board’s unilateral action violated Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817). However, in a critical distinction, the ALJ ruled that the $10 assessment increase on developed lots was permissible and should stand, as the authority to set different rates for completed and uncompleted lots was already established in the valid 2009 First Amendment to the Declaration.

The judge also rejected the petitioner’s conflict of interest claim against three Board members with financial ties to the developer, deeming the petitioner’s interpretation of the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) to be overbroad. The final order, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner, required the HOA to pay the petitioner’s $500 filing fee and to comply with state statutes regarding amendments and conflicts of interest in the future.

Case Details

Details

Case Name

Jay Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, Respondent

Case Number

HO 17-16/019

Docket Number

17F-H1716019-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings / Arizona Department of Real Estate

Petitioner

Jay Janicek (appeared personally)

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA (represented by Evan Thomson, Esq.)

Administrative Law Judge

Suzanne Marwil

Hearing Date

March 2, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

March 14, 2017

Final Order Date

March 16, 2017

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Background and Core Dispute

The conflict originated from changes to the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (Declaration).

• 2005 Declaration: The original “2005 Amended and Restated Declaration” contained Section 6.8, which established a uniform assessment rate for all lots. Crucially, it exempted the Declarant and Developer from payments on any property except for “Completed Lots.” This section provided a specific definition for “Completed Lots,” describing them as any lot with a dwelling unit ready for occupancy.

• 2009 First Amendment: On December 4, 2008, after securing a vote from 75% of lot owners, the HOA adopted the “First Amendment to the 2005 Declaration.” This amendment deleted the original Section 6.8 in its entirety and replaced it with new language stating: “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots.” This amendment, however, omitted the definition of a “Completed Lot” that was present in the 2005 version.

• Seven-Year Period: For seven years following the 2009 amendment, the revised Section 6.8 remained unchanged, without the specific definition.

The “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”

In June or July 2016, the HOA Board proposed a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” to address the omitted definition.

• Board’s Position: The Respondent, represented by its president Steven Russo, argued that the purpose of the declaration was simply to correct a clerical error by reinserting the definition of a developed versus undeveloped lot, which was “inadvertently omitted” from the 2009 First Amendment. The Board stated it was acting on the advice of its legal counsel.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Janicek contended that this declaration was not a correction of a minor error but was a substantive change to the Declaration. As such, he argued it required the approval of 75% of the lot owners, a process that was not followed.

• Adoption: On August 3, 2016, the Board adopted the Declaration of Scrivener’s Error by a 3-2 vote. Petitioner Janicek and another Board member representing developed lot owners voted against the measure.

• Immediate Consequence: Following the adoption, the Board voted to increase the annual assessment for developed lot owners by $10.00, while the assessment for undeveloped lots remained unchanged. This action prompted Mr. Janicek to file his petition.

Allegations of Fiduciary Duty and Conflict of Interest

Petitioner Janicek accused the Respondent of a violation of its fiduciary duty and a conflict of interest. He noted that three members of the Board had a financial interest in NT Properties, the company that owned the community’s undeveloped lots. These lots directly benefited from the assessment structure that placed a higher burden on developed lots.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 14, 2017, contained three central conclusions of law that addressed the distinct issues raised in the petition.

1. The “Scrivener’s Error” was an Invalid Amendment

The judge found decisively in favor of the petitioner on the core issue of the amendment process.

• Substantive Change, Not Clerical Error: The Tribunal found that the change constituted an amendment to the Declaration, not a correction of a simple clerical error.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1817: The judge ruled that the procedure for amending the Declaration requires a vote by the lot owners, as specified in the Declaration and state law. The HOA violated this statute by attempting to amend the document via a simple Board vote.

• Key Judicial Reasoning: The judge noted that the same section had been properly amended by a homeowner vote in 2009. The ruling states, “after a period of seven years, it defies logic to suggest that a further change to section was simply a clerical error.”

• Conclusion: The Declaration of Scrivener’s Error (Exhibit C) was declared invalid and could not operate to amend the Declaration.

2. The Assessment Increase Was Valid

Despite invalidating the method used by the Board, the judge upheld the Board’s right to implement the assessment increase.

• Existing Authority: The ruling stated that the invalidity of Exhibit C “does not implicate Respondent’s right to impose an increased assessment on the developed lots.”

• Basis in 2009 Amendment: The judge found that the language of the valid 2009 First Amendment—which expressly states that “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots”—provided the Board with sufficient authority to set differential rates.

• Conclusion: The raised assessment was allowed to stand.

3. Conflict of Interest Claim Rejected

The Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s argument that Board members with ties to NT Properties had a conflict of interest under A.R.S. § 33-1811.

• “Overbroad” Interpretation: The judge found the petitioner’s interpretation of the conflict-of-interest statute to be “overbroad.”

• Rationale: The ruling stated that this interpretation “ignores that make-up of the Board as outlined in the Declaration and disregards the express language permitting the Board to assess annual dues.”

• Conclusion: The Board members were not required to declare a conflict of interest and were permitted to vote on the issue.

Final Order

The petition filed by Jay Janicek was granted. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was officially adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate in a Final Order dated March 16, 2017. The final order mandated the following:

• The Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA must pay the petitioner, Jay Janicek, the $500.00 filing fee.

• The HOA must comply with the applicable provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1817 (regarding the proper procedure for amending a declaration) and § 33-1811 (regarding conflicts of interest) in the future.


Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-14
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thomson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was granted. The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by invalidly adopting the 'Declaration of Scrivener's Error' (Exhibit C) as an amendment without the required lot owner vote. However, the $10.00 annual increased assessment that Petitioner objected to was permitted to stand because the authority for differential assessments was established by the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, independent of the invalid Exhibit C. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner objected to the increased assessment resulting from Exhibit C, but the Tribunal determined that Respondent had the right to impose the increased assessment pursuant to the language of Section 6.8 in the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, regardless of the invalidity of Exhibit C.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Amendment of Declaration (Declaration of Scrivener's Error)

Petitioner claimed Respondent HOA improperly adopted a Declaration of Scrivener's Error (Exhibit C) to revise the definition of developed/undeveloped lots, arguing it was a substantive amendment requiring a 75% lot owner vote, which Respondent failed to obtain.

Orders: The Tribunal found that Exhibit C constituted an amendment and Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by adopting it without a vote. Exhibit C was deemed invalid, but this invalidity did not nullify the subsequent assessment increase, which was authorized by a prior, valid declaration amendment. Respondent was ordered to refund the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Declaration Amendment, Scrivener's Error, Assessments, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 551057.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:13 (83.7 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 559875.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:13 (794.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716019-REL


Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative legal dispute between petitioner Jay Janicek and respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (HOA), culminating in the case No. 17F-H1716019-REL. The core of the conflict was the HOA Board’s attempt to amend its governing Declaration via a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” without the required 75% vote from lot owners. This action was intended to reinsert a definition of “Completed Lots” that had been omitted from a 2009 amendment and was followed by a $10 annual assessment increase on developed lots.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting his petition and invalidating the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.” The judge found that the change was a substantive amendment, not a correction of a clerical error, and the Board’s unilateral action violated Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817). However, in a critical distinction, the ALJ ruled that the $10 assessment increase on developed lots was permissible and should stand, as the authority to set different rates for completed and uncompleted lots was already established in the valid 2009 First Amendment to the Declaration.

The judge also rejected the petitioner’s conflict of interest claim against three Board members with financial ties to the developer, deeming the petitioner’s interpretation of the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) to be overbroad. The final order, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner, required the HOA to pay the petitioner’s $500 filing fee and to comply with state statutes regarding amendments and conflicts of interest in the future.

Case Details

Details

Case Name

Jay Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, Respondent

Case Number

HO 17-16/019

Docket Number

17F-H1716019-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings / Arizona Department of Real Estate

Petitioner

Jay Janicek (appeared personally)

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA (represented by Evan Thomson, Esq.)

Administrative Law Judge

Suzanne Marwil

Hearing Date

March 2, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

March 14, 2017

Final Order Date

March 16, 2017

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Background and Core Dispute

The conflict originated from changes to the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (Declaration).

• 2005 Declaration: The original “2005 Amended and Restated Declaration” contained Section 6.8, which established a uniform assessment rate for all lots. Crucially, it exempted the Declarant and Developer from payments on any property except for “Completed Lots.” This section provided a specific definition for “Completed Lots,” describing them as any lot with a dwelling unit ready for occupancy.

• 2009 First Amendment: On December 4, 2008, after securing a vote from 75% of lot owners, the HOA adopted the “First Amendment to the 2005 Declaration.” This amendment deleted the original Section 6.8 in its entirety and replaced it with new language stating: “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots.” This amendment, however, omitted the definition of a “Completed Lot” that was present in the 2005 version.

• Seven-Year Period: For seven years following the 2009 amendment, the revised Section 6.8 remained unchanged, without the specific definition.

The “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”

In June or July 2016, the HOA Board proposed a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” to address the omitted definition.

• Board’s Position: The Respondent, represented by its president Steven Russo, argued that the purpose of the declaration was simply to correct a clerical error by reinserting the definition of a developed versus undeveloped lot, which was “inadvertently omitted” from the 2009 First Amendment. The Board stated it was acting on the advice of its legal counsel.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Janicek contended that this declaration was not a correction of a minor error but was a substantive change to the Declaration. As such, he argued it required the approval of 75% of the lot owners, a process that was not followed.

• Adoption: On August 3, 2016, the Board adopted the Declaration of Scrivener’s Error by a 3-2 vote. Petitioner Janicek and another Board member representing developed lot owners voted against the measure.

• Immediate Consequence: Following the adoption, the Board voted to increase the annual assessment for developed lot owners by $10.00, while the assessment for undeveloped lots remained unchanged. This action prompted Mr. Janicek to file his petition.

Allegations of Fiduciary Duty and Conflict of Interest

Petitioner Janicek accused the Respondent of a violation of its fiduciary duty and a conflict of interest. He noted that three members of the Board had a financial interest in NT Properties, the company that owned the community’s undeveloped lots. These lots directly benefited from the assessment structure that placed a higher burden on developed lots.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 14, 2017, contained three central conclusions of law that addressed the distinct issues raised in the petition.

1. The “Scrivener’s Error” was an Invalid Amendment

The judge found decisively in favor of the petitioner on the core issue of the amendment process.

• Substantive Change, Not Clerical Error: The Tribunal found that the change constituted an amendment to the Declaration, not a correction of a simple clerical error.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1817: The judge ruled that the procedure for amending the Declaration requires a vote by the lot owners, as specified in the Declaration and state law. The HOA violated this statute by attempting to amend the document via a simple Board vote.

• Key Judicial Reasoning: The judge noted that the same section had been properly amended by a homeowner vote in 2009. The ruling states, “after a period of seven years, it defies logic to suggest that a further change to section was simply a clerical error.”

• Conclusion: The Declaration of Scrivener’s Error (Exhibit C) was declared invalid and could not operate to amend the Declaration.

2. The Assessment Increase Was Valid

Despite invalidating the method used by the Board, the judge upheld the Board’s right to implement the assessment increase.

• Existing Authority: The ruling stated that the invalidity of Exhibit C “does not implicate Respondent’s right to impose an increased assessment on the developed lots.”

• Basis in 2009 Amendment: The judge found that the language of the valid 2009 First Amendment—which expressly states that “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots”—provided the Board with sufficient authority to set differential rates.

• Conclusion: The raised assessment was allowed to stand.

3. Conflict of Interest Claim Rejected

The Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s argument that Board members with ties to NT Properties had a conflict of interest under A.R.S. § 33-1811.

• “Overbroad” Interpretation: The judge found the petitioner’s interpretation of the conflict-of-interest statute to be “overbroad.”

• Rationale: The ruling stated that this interpretation “ignores that make-up of the Board as outlined in the Declaration and disregards the express language permitting the Board to assess annual dues.”

• Conclusion: The Board members were not required to declare a conflict of interest and were permitted to vote on the issue.

Final Order

The petition filed by Jay Janicek was granted. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was officially adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate in a Final Order dated March 16, 2017. The final order mandated the following:

• The Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA must pay the petitioner, Jay Janicek, the $500.00 filing fee.

• The HOA must comply with the applicable provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1817 (regarding the proper procedure for amending a declaration) and § 33-1811 (regarding conflicts of interest) in the future.






Study Guide – 17F-H1716019-REL


Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA (No. 17F-H1716019-REL). It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to aid in understanding the facts, arguments, and legal conclusions of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their roles?

2. What was the central action taken by the Respondent’s Board that led to this legal dispute?

3. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”?

4. How did the Respondent justify its use of a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” instead of a full vote by lot owners?

5. Describe the conflict of interest alleged by the Petitioner against the Respondent’s Board.

6. How did the 2009 First Amendment alter Section 6.8 of the HOA’s 2005 Declaration?

7. What was the direct financial consequence for developed lot owners following the Board’s actions in 2016?

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final ruling regarding the validity of the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”?

9. Despite invalidating the Board’s action, what did the Judge decide regarding the increased assessment on developed lots?

10. What was the final order issued in the case, and what was the Respondent required to do?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Jay Janicek and Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. Janicek, a lot owner, brought the petition against the Homeowner’s Association to challenge a decision made by its Board of Directors.

2. The Respondent’s Board, by a 3-2 vote, adopted a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” on August 3, 2016. This action was intended to reinsert a definition of “Completed Lots” that had been omitted from a 2009 amendment to the HOA’s governing documents.

3. The Petitioner argued that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was not a simple correction but a substantive change to the Declaration. As such, he contended it was an amendment that required approval by a vote of seventy-five percent of the lot owners, not just a Board vote.

4. The Respondent argued that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was merely intended to correct a clerical error by reinserting the definition of developed versus undeveloped lots, which was inadvertently deleted from the 2009 revision. The Board’s President, Steven Russo, testified that they acted on the recommendation of their legal counsel.

5. The Petitioner alleged a conflict of interest because three members of the Respondent’s Board had a financial interest in NT Properties, the company that owns the undeveloped lots. The Petitioner argued that these members stood to benefit from assessment changes that favored undeveloped lots.

6. The 2009 First Amendment deleted the original Section 6.8 and replaced it with new language. This new language explicitly allowed annual dues to be assessed at different uniform rates for “Completed Lots” and “Uncompleted Lots,” a distinction not present in the original uniform rate structure.

7. Following the adoption of the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error,” the Board voted to increase the annual assessment for developed lot owners by $10.00. The assessment for undeveloped lots was left unchanged.

8. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was an invalid amendment to the Declaration. The Judge found that it was a substantive change that required a vote of the lot owners as specified in A.R.S. §33-1817, and that calling it a correction of a clerical error after seven years “defies logic.”

9. The Judge ruled that the increased assessment on developed lots could stand. The ruling was based on the language of the valid 2009 First Amendment, which expressly permitted the HOA to assess different rates for completed and uncompleted lots, independent of the invalidated “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.”

10. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following questions. Formulate a comprehensive response drawing upon the specific facts, legal arguments, and conclusions presented in the case documents.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to invalidate the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” while simultaneously upholding the increased assessment on developed lots. Explain how both parts of this ruling were supported by different governing documents.

2. Discuss the conflict of interest allegation raised by Jay Janicek under A.R.S. § 33-1811. Why did the Tribunal ultimately reject this argument, and what does this rejection imply about the Board’s authority to set assessments under the Declaration?

3. Trace the evolution of Section 6.8 of the Declaration from the original 2005 version, through the 2009 First Amendment, to the attempted 2016 change. Explain the significance of the “Completed Lots” definition and how its omission and attempted reinsertion became the central point of the dispute.

4. Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that it was simply correcting an inadvertent clerical error. What evidence and reasoning did the Administrative Law Judge use to conclude that this was, in fact, an improper amendment?

5. Describe the legal requirements for amending an HOA declaration as outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1817. Explain precisely how the actions of the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Board violated this statute.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding judge in the administrative hearing, in this case, Suzanne Marwil. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on the facts and applicable laws.

A.R.S. § 33-1811

An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case that addresses conflicts of interest for members of an HOA board of directors. The Tribunal found the Petitioner’s interpretation of this statute to be overbroad.

A.R.S. § 33-1817

An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case that outlines the legal requirements and procedures for amending an HOA’s declaration. The ALJ found the Respondent violated this statute.

Completed Lots

As defined in the original 2005 Declaration, this refers to any lot with a dwelling unit ready for occupancy, including installed carpets, cabinets, plumbing, etc. This definition was central to the dispute.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (Declaration)

The primary governing legal document of the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, which outlines the rules, assessments, and rights of the property owners.

Declaration of Scrivener’s Error

The legal instrument adopted by the Respondent’s Board in a 3-2 vote on August 3, 2016. It was purported to correct a clerical error but was ruled to be an invalid substantive amendment to the Declaration.

First Amendment

The amendment to the 2005 Declaration adopted on December 4, 2008, after a vote of 75% of the lot owners. It changed Section 6.8 to allow for different assessment rates for completed and uncompleted lots but inadvertently omitted the definition of a “Completed Lot.”

NT Properties

A company with a financial interest in the undeveloped lots within the HOA. Three members of the Respondent’s Board also had a financial interest in this company, forming the basis of a conflict of interest allegation.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Jay Janicek.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA.

Tribunal

A term used within the decision to refer to the adjudicating body, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Uniform Rate of Assessment

A principle laid out in the 2005 Declaration requiring that annual and special assessments be fixed at a uniform rate for all lots. This was modified by the 2009 First Amendment.






Blog Post – 17F-H1716019-REL


He Sued His HOA and Won. Here’s Why He Still Had to Pay.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath of Neighborhood Disputes

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like a constant source of tension. It’s a world of rules, fees, and board decisions that can seem arbitrary or unfair. So when a single homeowner decides to take on their entire HOA in a legal battle, it feels like a classic David vs. Goliath story. This is one of those stories—about a homeowner who challenged an improper rule change and an unexpected fee increase. He took his HOA to court and, on paper, he won. But as he discovered, the outcome was far more surprising and nuanced than a simple victory.

——————————————————————————–

1. You Can’t Fix a Seven-Year-Old “Mistake” with a Simple Board Vote.

The core of the dispute began when the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA tried to amend its governing documents with a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.” Their goal was to reinsert definitions of “Completed Lots” versus “Undeveloped Lots” that they claimed had been “inadvertently deleted” from a revision seven years prior.

Instead of seeking approval from the homeowners, the Board of Directors passed this “correction” on August 3, 2016, with a simple 3-2 vote. This procedural shortcut triggered the legal challenge.

The Administrative Law Judge unequivocally rejected the HOA’s move. The judge’s reasoning was sharp and logical: the seven-year gap since the original amendment was a critical factor. The sheer passage of time had transformed what the HOA called a clerical correction into what the law considered a substantive change. As such, it required a vote by 75% of the lot owners, not a simple board action.

The judge’s decision underscored this point with a powerful rebuke:

…after a period of seven years, it defies logic to suggest that a further change to section was simply a clerical error.

This finding was a crucial victory for the homeowner. It affirmed that HOAs must follow the proper procedures outlined in their own governing documents and cannot use shortcuts to rewrite history, no matter how they frame their intentions.

——————————————————————————–

2. A Legal “Win” Doesn’t Always Mean You Get the Financial Outcome You Want.

Even though the judge invalidated the HOA’s “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error,” she made another, more surprising ruling: the $10.00 annual assessment increase on developed lots—the very fee that sparked the lawsuit—was valid and would stand.

The legal reasoning was buried in the fine print of the HOA’s own documents. A different amendment, one legally passed with a 75% homeowner vote on December 4, 2008, already gave the Board the explicit authority to set different assessment rates. The key language in that valid amendment stated, “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots.”

This created the central irony of the case: the HOA took a legally improper path to arrive at a destination they already had a legal right to reach. Interestingly, the HOA board president testified they were acting on the advice of their counsel, suggesting this was less a malicious act and more of a costly legal misstep.

The petitioner, Jay Janicek, won his case on principle. The judge’s order granted his petition and even awarded him his $500.00 filing fee. But he lost on the practical financial issue that started the dispute. The $10 increase remained. It’s a stark illustration of how complex legal documents can be, where one legally sound clause can override a victory on another front.

——————————————————————————–

3. Proving a Conflict of Interest Is Harder Than It Looks.

The homeowner also accused the board of a conflict of interest. He pointed out that three members of the five-person board had a financial stake in NT Properties, the company that owned the community’s undeveloped lots. These were the very lots that benefited from the new assessment structure, as their fees remained unchanged while only the developed lots saw the $10 increase. On the surface, it appeared to be a clear-cut case of self-dealing.

However, the judge rejected this claim, ruling that the petitioner’s interpretation of the conflict of interest statute was “overbroad.” The judge’s analysis provided a crucial distinction: the board members were not inventing a new power for their own benefit; they were exercising a power explicitly granted to the Board by the homeowners themselves in the 2009 Declaration. The ruling noted that the petitioner’s argument “disregards the express language permitting the Board to assess annual dues.”

This takeaway is a sobering one for homeowners. It demonstrates that what might look like a glaring conflict of interest to a layperson may not meet the specific legal standard required to invalidate a board’s actions, especially when those actions fall within the powers already granted by the community’s governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Victory of Principle

In the end, the homeowner walked away with a strange and dual outcome. He successfully proved his HOA acted improperly by trying to amend its rules without a proper vote, yet he could not reverse the financial consequence that drove him to file the suit. The case stands as a powerful reminder for all homeowners: understanding both the procedural rules your HOA must follow and the precise wording hidden deep within its governing documents is absolutely critical. This ruling created a clear divide between procedural justice and financial reality.

This case was a victory of principle over practice—how much is a principle worth when the bottom line doesn’t change?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jay Janicek (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Evan Thomson (attorney)
    Represented Respondent
  • Steven Russo (board member)
    Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
    President of Respondent; testified
  • Dane Dehler (attorney)
    Thompson Kron, P.L.C.
    Received copy of final order
  • Whitney Cunningham (HOA contact)
    Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
    Received copy of final order c/o

Neutral Parties

  • Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Recipient for rehearing request

Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-14
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thomson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was granted. The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by invalidly adopting the 'Declaration of Scrivener's Error' (Exhibit C) as an amendment without the required lot owner vote. However, the $10.00 annual increased assessment that Petitioner objected to was permitted to stand because the authority for differential assessments was established by the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, independent of the invalid Exhibit C. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner objected to the increased assessment resulting from Exhibit C, but the Tribunal determined that Respondent had the right to impose the increased assessment pursuant to the language of Section 6.8 in the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, regardless of the invalidity of Exhibit C.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Amendment of Declaration (Declaration of Scrivener's Error)

Petitioner claimed Respondent HOA improperly adopted a Declaration of Scrivener's Error (Exhibit C) to revise the definition of developed/undeveloped lots, arguing it was a substantive amendment requiring a 75% lot owner vote, which Respondent failed to obtain.

Orders: The Tribunal found that Exhibit C constituted an amendment and Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by adopting it without a vote. Exhibit C was deemed invalid, but this invalidity did not nullify the subsequent assessment increase, which was authorized by a prior, valid declaration amendment. Respondent was ordered to refund the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Declaration Amendment, Scrivener's Error, Assessments, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 551057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:18:45 (83.7 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 559875.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:18:51 (794.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716019-REL


Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative legal dispute between petitioner Jay Janicek and respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (HOA), culminating in the case No. 17F-H1716019-REL. The core of the conflict was the HOA Board’s attempt to amend its governing Declaration via a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” without the required 75% vote from lot owners. This action was intended to reinsert a definition of “Completed Lots” that had been omitted from a 2009 amendment and was followed by a $10 annual assessment increase on developed lots.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting his petition and invalidating the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.” The judge found that the change was a substantive amendment, not a correction of a clerical error, and the Board’s unilateral action violated Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817). However, in a critical distinction, the ALJ ruled that the $10 assessment increase on developed lots was permissible and should stand, as the authority to set different rates for completed and uncompleted lots was already established in the valid 2009 First Amendment to the Declaration.

The judge also rejected the petitioner’s conflict of interest claim against three Board members with financial ties to the developer, deeming the petitioner’s interpretation of the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) to be overbroad. The final order, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner, required the HOA to pay the petitioner’s $500 filing fee and to comply with state statutes regarding amendments and conflicts of interest in the future.

Case Details

Details

Case Name

Jay Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, Respondent

Case Number

HO 17-16/019

Docket Number

17F-H1716019-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings / Arizona Department of Real Estate

Petitioner

Jay Janicek (appeared personally)

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA (represented by Evan Thomson, Esq.)

Administrative Law Judge

Suzanne Marwil

Hearing Date

March 2, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

March 14, 2017

Final Order Date

March 16, 2017

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Background and Core Dispute

The conflict originated from changes to the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (Declaration).

• 2005 Declaration: The original “2005 Amended and Restated Declaration” contained Section 6.8, which established a uniform assessment rate for all lots. Crucially, it exempted the Declarant and Developer from payments on any property except for “Completed Lots.” This section provided a specific definition for “Completed Lots,” describing them as any lot with a dwelling unit ready for occupancy.

• 2009 First Amendment: On December 4, 2008, after securing a vote from 75% of lot owners, the HOA adopted the “First Amendment to the 2005 Declaration.” This amendment deleted the original Section 6.8 in its entirety and replaced it with new language stating: “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots.” This amendment, however, omitted the definition of a “Completed Lot” that was present in the 2005 version.

• Seven-Year Period: For seven years following the 2009 amendment, the revised Section 6.8 remained unchanged, without the specific definition.

The “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”

In June or July 2016, the HOA Board proposed a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” to address the omitted definition.

• Board’s Position: The Respondent, represented by its president Steven Russo, argued that the purpose of the declaration was simply to correct a clerical error by reinserting the definition of a developed versus undeveloped lot, which was “inadvertently omitted” from the 2009 First Amendment. The Board stated it was acting on the advice of its legal counsel.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Janicek contended that this declaration was not a correction of a minor error but was a substantive change to the Declaration. As such, he argued it required the approval of 75% of the lot owners, a process that was not followed.

• Adoption: On August 3, 2016, the Board adopted the Declaration of Scrivener’s Error by a 3-2 vote. Petitioner Janicek and another Board member representing developed lot owners voted against the measure.

• Immediate Consequence: Following the adoption, the Board voted to increase the annual assessment for developed lot owners by $10.00, while the assessment for undeveloped lots remained unchanged. This action prompted Mr. Janicek to file his petition.

Allegations of Fiduciary Duty and Conflict of Interest

Petitioner Janicek accused the Respondent of a violation of its fiduciary duty and a conflict of interest. He noted that three members of the Board had a financial interest in NT Properties, the company that owned the community’s undeveloped lots. These lots directly benefited from the assessment structure that placed a higher burden on developed lots.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 14, 2017, contained three central conclusions of law that addressed the distinct issues raised in the petition.

1. The “Scrivener’s Error” was an Invalid Amendment

The judge found decisively in favor of the petitioner on the core issue of the amendment process.

• Substantive Change, Not Clerical Error: The Tribunal found that the change constituted an amendment to the Declaration, not a correction of a simple clerical error.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1817: The judge ruled that the procedure for amending the Declaration requires a vote by the lot owners, as specified in the Declaration and state law. The HOA violated this statute by attempting to amend the document via a simple Board vote.

• Key Judicial Reasoning: The judge noted that the same section had been properly amended by a homeowner vote in 2009. The ruling states, “after a period of seven years, it defies logic to suggest that a further change to section was simply a clerical error.”

• Conclusion: The Declaration of Scrivener’s Error (Exhibit C) was declared invalid and could not operate to amend the Declaration.

2. The Assessment Increase Was Valid

Despite invalidating the method used by the Board, the judge upheld the Board’s right to implement the assessment increase.

• Existing Authority: The ruling stated that the invalidity of Exhibit C “does not implicate Respondent’s right to impose an increased assessment on the developed lots.”

• Basis in 2009 Amendment: The judge found that the language of the valid 2009 First Amendment—which expressly states that “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots”—provided the Board with sufficient authority to set differential rates.

• Conclusion: The raised assessment was allowed to stand.

3. Conflict of Interest Claim Rejected

The Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s argument that Board members with ties to NT Properties had a conflict of interest under A.R.S. § 33-1811.

• “Overbroad” Interpretation: The judge found the petitioner’s interpretation of the conflict-of-interest statute to be “overbroad.”

• Rationale: The ruling stated that this interpretation “ignores that make-up of the Board as outlined in the Declaration and disregards the express language permitting the Board to assess annual dues.”

• Conclusion: The Board members were not required to declare a conflict of interest and were permitted to vote on the issue.

Final Order

The petition filed by Jay Janicek was granted. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was officially adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate in a Final Order dated March 16, 2017. The final order mandated the following:

• The Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA must pay the petitioner, Jay Janicek, the $500.00 filing fee.

• The HOA must comply with the applicable provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1817 (regarding the proper procedure for amending a declaration) and § 33-1811 (regarding conflicts of interest) in the future.






Study Guide – 17F-H1716019-REL


Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA (No. 17F-H1716019-REL). It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to aid in understanding the facts, arguments, and legal conclusions of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their roles?

2. What was the central action taken by the Respondent’s Board that led to this legal dispute?

3. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”?

4. How did the Respondent justify its use of a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” instead of a full vote by lot owners?

5. Describe the conflict of interest alleged by the Petitioner against the Respondent’s Board.

6. How did the 2009 First Amendment alter Section 6.8 of the HOA’s 2005 Declaration?

7. What was the direct financial consequence for developed lot owners following the Board’s actions in 2016?

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final ruling regarding the validity of the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”?

9. Despite invalidating the Board’s action, what did the Judge decide regarding the increased assessment on developed lots?

10. What was the final order issued in the case, and what was the Respondent required to do?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Jay Janicek and Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. Janicek, a lot owner, brought the petition against the Homeowner’s Association to challenge a decision made by its Board of Directors.

2. The Respondent’s Board, by a 3-2 vote, adopted a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” on August 3, 2016. This action was intended to reinsert a definition of “Completed Lots” that had been omitted from a 2009 amendment to the HOA’s governing documents.

3. The Petitioner argued that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was not a simple correction but a substantive change to the Declaration. As such, he contended it was an amendment that required approval by a vote of seventy-five percent of the lot owners, not just a Board vote.

4. The Respondent argued that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was merely intended to correct a clerical error by reinserting the definition of developed versus undeveloped lots, which was inadvertently deleted from the 2009 revision. The Board’s President, Steven Russo, testified that they acted on the recommendation of their legal counsel.

5. The Petitioner alleged a conflict of interest because three members of the Respondent’s Board had a financial interest in NT Properties, the company that owns the undeveloped lots. The Petitioner argued that these members stood to benefit from assessment changes that favored undeveloped lots.

6. The 2009 First Amendment deleted the original Section 6.8 and replaced it with new language. This new language explicitly allowed annual dues to be assessed at different uniform rates for “Completed Lots” and “Uncompleted Lots,” a distinction not present in the original uniform rate structure.

7. Following the adoption of the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error,” the Board voted to increase the annual assessment for developed lot owners by $10.00. The assessment for undeveloped lots was left unchanged.

8. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was an invalid amendment to the Declaration. The Judge found that it was a substantive change that required a vote of the lot owners as specified in A.R.S. §33-1817, and that calling it a correction of a clerical error after seven years “defies logic.”

9. The Judge ruled that the increased assessment on developed lots could stand. The ruling was based on the language of the valid 2009 First Amendment, which expressly permitted the HOA to assess different rates for completed and uncompleted lots, independent of the invalidated “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.”

10. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following questions. Formulate a comprehensive response drawing upon the specific facts, legal arguments, and conclusions presented in the case documents.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to invalidate the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” while simultaneously upholding the increased assessment on developed lots. Explain how both parts of this ruling were supported by different governing documents.

2. Discuss the conflict of interest allegation raised by Jay Janicek under A.R.S. § 33-1811. Why did the Tribunal ultimately reject this argument, and what does this rejection imply about the Board’s authority to set assessments under the Declaration?

3. Trace the evolution of Section 6.8 of the Declaration from the original 2005 version, through the 2009 First Amendment, to the attempted 2016 change. Explain the significance of the “Completed Lots” definition and how its omission and attempted reinsertion became the central point of the dispute.

4. Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that it was simply correcting an inadvertent clerical error. What evidence and reasoning did the Administrative Law Judge use to conclude that this was, in fact, an improper amendment?

5. Describe the legal requirements for amending an HOA declaration as outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1817. Explain precisely how the actions of the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Board violated this statute.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding judge in the administrative hearing, in this case, Suzanne Marwil. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on the facts and applicable laws.

A.R.S. § 33-1811

An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case that addresses conflicts of interest for members of an HOA board of directors. The Tribunal found the Petitioner’s interpretation of this statute to be overbroad.

A.R.S. § 33-1817

An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case that outlines the legal requirements and procedures for amending an HOA’s declaration. The ALJ found the Respondent violated this statute.

Completed Lots

As defined in the original 2005 Declaration, this refers to any lot with a dwelling unit ready for occupancy, including installed carpets, cabinets, plumbing, etc. This definition was central to the dispute.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (Declaration)

The primary governing legal document of the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, which outlines the rules, assessments, and rights of the property owners.

Declaration of Scrivener’s Error

The legal instrument adopted by the Respondent’s Board in a 3-2 vote on August 3, 2016. It was purported to correct a clerical error but was ruled to be an invalid substantive amendment to the Declaration.

First Amendment

The amendment to the 2005 Declaration adopted on December 4, 2008, after a vote of 75% of the lot owners. It changed Section 6.8 to allow for different assessment rates for completed and uncompleted lots but inadvertently omitted the definition of a “Completed Lot.”

NT Properties

A company with a financial interest in the undeveloped lots within the HOA. Three members of the Respondent’s Board also had a financial interest in this company, forming the basis of a conflict of interest allegation.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Jay Janicek.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA.

Tribunal

A term used within the decision to refer to the adjudicating body, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Uniform Rate of Assessment

A principle laid out in the 2005 Declaration requiring that annual and special assessments be fixed at a uniform rate for all lots. This was modified by the 2009 First Amendment.






Blog Post – 17F-H1716019-REL


He Sued His HOA and Won. Here’s Why He Still Had to Pay.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath of Neighborhood Disputes

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like a constant source of tension. It’s a world of rules, fees, and board decisions that can seem arbitrary or unfair. So when a single homeowner decides to take on their entire HOA in a legal battle, it feels like a classic David vs. Goliath story. This is one of those stories—about a homeowner who challenged an improper rule change and an unexpected fee increase. He took his HOA to court and, on paper, he won. But as he discovered, the outcome was far more surprising and nuanced than a simple victory.

——————————————————————————–

1. You Can’t Fix a Seven-Year-Old “Mistake” with a Simple Board Vote.

The core of the dispute began when the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA tried to amend its governing documents with a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.” Their goal was to reinsert definitions of “Completed Lots” versus “Undeveloped Lots” that they claimed had been “inadvertently deleted” from a revision seven years prior.

Instead of seeking approval from the homeowners, the Board of Directors passed this “correction” on August 3, 2016, with a simple 3-2 vote. This procedural shortcut triggered the legal challenge.

The Administrative Law Judge unequivocally rejected the HOA’s move. The judge’s reasoning was sharp and logical: the seven-year gap since the original amendment was a critical factor. The sheer passage of time had transformed what the HOA called a clerical correction into what the law considered a substantive change. As such, it required a vote by 75% of the lot owners, not a simple board action.

The judge’s decision underscored this point with a powerful rebuke:

…after a period of seven years, it defies logic to suggest that a further change to section was simply a clerical error.

This finding was a crucial victory for the homeowner. It affirmed that HOAs must follow the proper procedures outlined in their own governing documents and cannot use shortcuts to rewrite history, no matter how they frame their intentions.

——————————————————————————–

2. A Legal “Win” Doesn’t Always Mean You Get the Financial Outcome You Want.

Even though the judge invalidated the HOA’s “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error,” she made another, more surprising ruling: the $10.00 annual assessment increase on developed lots—the very fee that sparked the lawsuit—was valid and would stand.

The legal reasoning was buried in the fine print of the HOA’s own documents. A different amendment, one legally passed with a 75% homeowner vote on December 4, 2008, already gave the Board the explicit authority to set different assessment rates. The key language in that valid amendment stated, “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots.”

This created the central irony of the case: the HOA took a legally improper path to arrive at a destination they already had a legal right to reach. Interestingly, the HOA board president testified they were acting on the advice of their counsel, suggesting this was less a malicious act and more of a costly legal misstep.

The petitioner, Jay Janicek, won his case on principle. The judge’s order granted his petition and even awarded him his $500.00 filing fee. But he lost on the practical financial issue that started the dispute. The $10 increase remained. It’s a stark illustration of how complex legal documents can be, where one legally sound clause can override a victory on another front.

——————————————————————————–

3. Proving a Conflict of Interest Is Harder Than It Looks.

The homeowner also accused the board of a conflict of interest. He pointed out that three members of the five-person board had a financial stake in NT Properties, the company that owned the community’s undeveloped lots. These were the very lots that benefited from the new assessment structure, as their fees remained unchanged while only the developed lots saw the $10 increase. On the surface, it appeared to be a clear-cut case of self-dealing.

However, the judge rejected this claim, ruling that the petitioner’s interpretation of the conflict of interest statute was “overbroad.” The judge’s analysis provided a crucial distinction: the board members were not inventing a new power for their own benefit; they were exercising a power explicitly granted to the Board by the homeowners themselves in the 2009 Declaration. The ruling noted that the petitioner’s argument “disregards the express language permitting the Board to assess annual dues.”

This takeaway is a sobering one for homeowners. It demonstrates that what might look like a glaring conflict of interest to a layperson may not meet the specific legal standard required to invalidate a board’s actions, especially when those actions fall within the powers already granted by the community’s governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Victory of Principle

In the end, the homeowner walked away with a strange and dual outcome. He successfully proved his HOA acted improperly by trying to amend its rules without a proper vote, yet he could not reverse the financial consequence that drove him to file the suit. The case stands as a powerful reminder for all homeowners: understanding both the procedural rules your HOA must follow and the precise wording hidden deep within its governing documents is absolutely critical. This ruling created a clear divide between procedural justice and financial reality.

This case was a victory of principle over practice—how much is a principle worth when the bottom line doesn’t change?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jay Janicek (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Evan Thomson (attorney)
    Represented Respondent
  • Steven Russo (board member)
    Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
    President of Respondent; testified
  • Dane Dehler (attorney)
    Thompson Kron, P.L.C.
    Received copy of final order
  • Whitney Cunningham (HOA contact)
    Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
    Received copy of final order c/o

Neutral Parties

  • Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Recipient for rehearing request

Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-14
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thomson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was granted. The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by invalidly adopting the 'Declaration of Scrivener's Error' (Exhibit C) as an amendment without the required lot owner vote. However, the $10.00 annual increased assessment that Petitioner objected to was permitted to stand because the authority for differential assessments was established by the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, independent of the invalid Exhibit C. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner objected to the increased assessment resulting from Exhibit C, but the Tribunal determined that Respondent had the right to impose the increased assessment pursuant to the language of Section 6.8 in the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, regardless of the invalidity of Exhibit C.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Amendment of Declaration (Declaration of Scrivener's Error)

Petitioner claimed Respondent HOA improperly adopted a Declaration of Scrivener's Error (Exhibit C) to revise the definition of developed/undeveloped lots, arguing it was a substantive amendment requiring a 75% lot owner vote, which Respondent failed to obtain.

Orders: The Tribunal found that Exhibit C constituted an amendment and Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by adopting it without a vote. Exhibit C was deemed invalid, but this invalidity did not nullify the subsequent assessment increase, which was authorized by a prior, valid declaration amendment. Respondent was ordered to refund the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Declaration Amendment, Scrivener's Error, Assessments, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 551057.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:23 (83.7 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 559875.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:24 (794.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716019-REL


Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative legal dispute between petitioner Jay Janicek and respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (HOA), culminating in the case No. 17F-H1716019-REL. The core of the conflict was the HOA Board’s attempt to amend its governing Declaration via a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” without the required 75% vote from lot owners. This action was intended to reinsert a definition of “Completed Lots” that had been omitted from a 2009 amendment and was followed by a $10 annual assessment increase on developed lots.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting his petition and invalidating the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.” The judge found that the change was a substantive amendment, not a correction of a clerical error, and the Board’s unilateral action violated Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817). However, in a critical distinction, the ALJ ruled that the $10 assessment increase on developed lots was permissible and should stand, as the authority to set different rates for completed and uncompleted lots was already established in the valid 2009 First Amendment to the Declaration.

The judge also rejected the petitioner’s conflict of interest claim against three Board members with financial ties to the developer, deeming the petitioner’s interpretation of the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) to be overbroad. The final order, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner, required the HOA to pay the petitioner’s $500 filing fee and to comply with state statutes regarding amendments and conflicts of interest in the future.

Case Details

Details

Case Name

Jay Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, Respondent

Case Number

HO 17-16/019

Docket Number

17F-H1716019-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings / Arizona Department of Real Estate

Petitioner

Jay Janicek (appeared personally)

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA (represented by Evan Thomson, Esq.)

Administrative Law Judge

Suzanne Marwil

Hearing Date

March 2, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

March 14, 2017

Final Order Date

March 16, 2017

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Background and Core Dispute

The conflict originated from changes to the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (Declaration).

• 2005 Declaration: The original “2005 Amended and Restated Declaration” contained Section 6.8, which established a uniform assessment rate for all lots. Crucially, it exempted the Declarant and Developer from payments on any property except for “Completed Lots.” This section provided a specific definition for “Completed Lots,” describing them as any lot with a dwelling unit ready for occupancy.

• 2009 First Amendment: On December 4, 2008, after securing a vote from 75% of lot owners, the HOA adopted the “First Amendment to the 2005 Declaration.” This amendment deleted the original Section 6.8 in its entirety and replaced it with new language stating: “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots.” This amendment, however, omitted the definition of a “Completed Lot” that was present in the 2005 version.

• Seven-Year Period: For seven years following the 2009 amendment, the revised Section 6.8 remained unchanged, without the specific definition.

The “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”

In June or July 2016, the HOA Board proposed a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” to address the omitted definition.

• Board’s Position: The Respondent, represented by its president Steven Russo, argued that the purpose of the declaration was simply to correct a clerical error by reinserting the definition of a developed versus undeveloped lot, which was “inadvertently omitted” from the 2009 First Amendment. The Board stated it was acting on the advice of its legal counsel.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Janicek contended that this declaration was not a correction of a minor error but was a substantive change to the Declaration. As such, he argued it required the approval of 75% of the lot owners, a process that was not followed.

• Adoption: On August 3, 2016, the Board adopted the Declaration of Scrivener’s Error by a 3-2 vote. Petitioner Janicek and another Board member representing developed lot owners voted against the measure.

• Immediate Consequence: Following the adoption, the Board voted to increase the annual assessment for developed lot owners by $10.00, while the assessment for undeveloped lots remained unchanged. This action prompted Mr. Janicek to file his petition.

Allegations of Fiduciary Duty and Conflict of Interest

Petitioner Janicek accused the Respondent of a violation of its fiduciary duty and a conflict of interest. He noted that three members of the Board had a financial interest in NT Properties, the company that owned the community’s undeveloped lots. These lots directly benefited from the assessment structure that placed a higher burden on developed lots.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 14, 2017, contained three central conclusions of law that addressed the distinct issues raised in the petition.

1. The “Scrivener’s Error” was an Invalid Amendment

The judge found decisively in favor of the petitioner on the core issue of the amendment process.

• Substantive Change, Not Clerical Error: The Tribunal found that the change constituted an amendment to the Declaration, not a correction of a simple clerical error.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1817: The judge ruled that the procedure for amending the Declaration requires a vote by the lot owners, as specified in the Declaration and state law. The HOA violated this statute by attempting to amend the document via a simple Board vote.

• Key Judicial Reasoning: The judge noted that the same section had been properly amended by a homeowner vote in 2009. The ruling states, “after a period of seven years, it defies logic to suggest that a further change to section was simply a clerical error.”

• Conclusion: The Declaration of Scrivener’s Error (Exhibit C) was declared invalid and could not operate to amend the Declaration.

2. The Assessment Increase Was Valid

Despite invalidating the method used by the Board, the judge upheld the Board’s right to implement the assessment increase.

• Existing Authority: The ruling stated that the invalidity of Exhibit C “does not implicate Respondent’s right to impose an increased assessment on the developed lots.”

• Basis in 2009 Amendment: The judge found that the language of the valid 2009 First Amendment—which expressly states that “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots”—provided the Board with sufficient authority to set differential rates.

• Conclusion: The raised assessment was allowed to stand.

3. Conflict of Interest Claim Rejected

The Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s argument that Board members with ties to NT Properties had a conflict of interest under A.R.S. § 33-1811.

• “Overbroad” Interpretation: The judge found the petitioner’s interpretation of the conflict-of-interest statute to be “overbroad.”

• Rationale: The ruling stated that this interpretation “ignores that make-up of the Board as outlined in the Declaration and disregards the express language permitting the Board to assess annual dues.”

• Conclusion: The Board members were not required to declare a conflict of interest and were permitted to vote on the issue.

Final Order

The petition filed by Jay Janicek was granted. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was officially adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate in a Final Order dated March 16, 2017. The final order mandated the following:

• The Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA must pay the petitioner, Jay Janicek, the $500.00 filing fee.

• The HOA must comply with the applicable provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1817 (regarding the proper procedure for amending a declaration) and § 33-1811 (regarding conflicts of interest) in the future.