Category Archives: HOA Cases

John Klemmer vs. Caribbean Gardens Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616006-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-08-19
Administrative Law Judge Dorinda M. Lang
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John Klemmer Counsel —
Respondent Caribbean Gardens Association Counsel Alexis Firehawk

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1212(1), 33-1212(2), 33-1247(B), 33-1251(C), 33-1221(1), 33-1253(A)(1), 33-1253(A)(2), 33-1253(H)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition in its entirety. While the HOA admitted responsibility for common areas, the Petitioner failed to establish that the water staining on the subfloor or the condition of the pipes constituted damage requiring repair or replacement. The ALJ relied on the Respondent's expert testimony that the subfloor was structurally sound.

Why this result: Insufficient evidence to prove that the staining constituted structural damage or that mold/bacteria levels required remediation; Respondent provided expert testimony that the area was structurally sound.

Key Issues & Findings

Maintenance and Repair of Common Elements

Petitioner alleged the HOA was responsible for repairing water damage/staining to the subfloor and pipes in the common area ceiling/floor space caused by flooding from the unit above. Petitioner sought replacement of stained wood and remediation.

Orders: Petition dismissed in its entirety.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(2)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1247(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1251(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1253(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1253(A)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1253(H)

Decision Documents

16F-H1616006-BFS Decision – 513174.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:02:57 (72.6 KB)

16F-H1616006-BFS Decision – 521856.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:02:57 (62.9 KB)

**Case Summary: *John Klemmer vs. Caribbean Gardens Association***
**Case No.** 16F-H1616006-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

**Overview and Proceedings**
On August 2, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Dorinda M. Lang presided over a hearing regarding a petition filed by homeowner John Klemmer (Petitioner) against the Caribbean Gardens Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes and the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to repair damage to the common area located between his unit and the unit directly above him.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The dispute arose from flooding in the upstairs unit that affected the space above the Petitioner's ceiling.
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Klemmer argued that the Association was responsible for the common areas and must repair the damage caused by the flooding. He presented photographs showing discoloration on the subfloor and staining on a sewer pipe. He demanded the replacement of the stained wood due to concerns regarding mold, bacteria, and the condition of the sewer pipe.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association acknowledged its responsibility for common areas but argued that the specific condition complained of did not require repair. The Respondent presented testimony from a licensed contractor who stated that he inspected the area and determined the discoloration did not constitute structural damage. The witness testified that water staining is common near toilets and, despite the lack of mold testing, the wood remained structurally sound.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, requiring the Petitioner to show his contentions were more probably true than not.

* **Responsibility vs. Necessity:** While the legal responsibility of the Association to maintain common areas was undisputed, the Judge found that the Petitioner failed to prove that the area actually required remediation.
* **Insufficiency of Evidence:** The Judge determined that photographs of staining were insufficient to prove that wood replacement was necessary. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide evidence that the sewer pipe was malfunctioning or that there were levels of mold or bacteria requiring abatement.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be **dismissed in its entirety**.

Following the decision dated August 19, 20

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Klemmer (petitioner)
    Caribbean Gardens Association (Owner)
    Listed as John D. Klemmer in appearances
  • John A. Klemmer (witness)

Respondent Side

  • Alexis Firehawk (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Michael Busby (witness)
    Caribbean Gardens Association
    Licensed contractor and former handyman
  • Alex Gonzalez (witness)

Neutral Parties

  • Dorinda M. Lang (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Kathryn Bergamon (observer)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Louis Dettorre (agency staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    CC'd on certification
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed certification

John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616013-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John & Debborah Sellers Counsel —
Respondent The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Petitioners because the Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 by appointing board members without a public meeting. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the filing fee, but civil penalties were declined because the violation was based on a mistake of law rather than intentional misconduct.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Law (Board Appointments)

Petitioners alleged the remaining board member appointed new directors to fill vacancies without a public meeting. Respondent admitted the violation but claimed exigent circumstances due to lack of quorum and expiring management contract.

Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioners' filing fee. No civil penalty imposed as the violation was not intentional or repeated.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Dennis J. Legere and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

Decision Documents

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 505356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:22 (77.4 KB)

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 513402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:22 (60.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA**
**Case No. 16F-H1616013-BFS**

**Proceedings and Key Facts**
Petitioners John and Debborah Sellers filed a motion for summary judgment against The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (Respondent) regarding actions taken by the HOA board,. The dispute arose after three of the Respondent's four board members resigned in July 2015. The sole remaining board member continued to conduct business and appointed new members to serve the remaining terms in January 2016.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The central legal issue was whether the remaining board member's actions violated A.R.S. § 33-1804, which governs public meetings for homeowners' associations.

* **Petitioners' Position:** They argued the Respondent violated the statute and legal precedent established in *Dennis J. Legere and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA* regarding open meetings. They requested reimbursement of their filing fee and the imposition of sanctions,.
* **Respondent's Position:** The Respondent acknowledged that the "emergency" exception to A.R.S. § 33-1804 did not apply to this situation and admitted to the violation,. However, the Respondent argued against civil penalties, claiming the violation was not intentional. They asserted the remaining board member acted under a mistaken belief of necessity due to a lack of directors and an expiring management contract.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguished this case from *Legere*, where a board had routinely violated open meeting laws for convenience. In this instance, the ALJ found the Respondent did not routinely violate the law but acted due to "exigent circumstances based upon a mistake about the law’s requirements",. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), the Director has discretion to levy civil penalties. The ALJ determined that while the statute was violated, the lack of malicious intent meant a civil penalty was not warranted,.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
On July 7, 2016, ALJ Diane Mihalsky issued an Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision:
1. **Summary Judgment:** Granted in favor of the Petitioners because the Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804.
2. **Reimbursement:** Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for their filing fee.
3. **Penalties:** No civil penalty was levied. The Respondent was placed on notice that future violations would result in penalties,.
4. **Hearing:** The hearing scheduled for August 10, 2016, was vacated as unnecessary.

The Department of Real Estate did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, on August 22, 2016, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Attorney for The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of electronic transmission
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of final certification
  • Louis Dettorre (Agency Staff)
    Department of Real Estate
    Attn line for Commissioner Lowe
  • F. Del Sol (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed transmission for ALJ
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed transmission for Director Hanchett

Province Community Association vs. Caroll Gaines

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616007-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-06-06
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Province Community Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.
Respondent Caroll Gaines Counsel Robert J. Metli, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 3, Section 3.1(b)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner (HOA). The Judge found that the Respondent violated the age-restriction CC&Rs by allowing her minor great-grandchildren to occupy the unit (defined as bodily presence for a considerable time, here 80-85 hours/week). The reasonable accommodation previously granted was validly revoked by the HOA after it was discovered the caregiver (granddaughter) was working/schooling outside the home. Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the filing fee.

Why this result: Respondent failed to prove that the minors were not 'occupying' the home under the definitions of the CC&Rs, and failed to prove the necessity of the accommodation after the HOA revoked it based on new information regarding the caregiver's employment.

Key Issues & Findings

Age Restricted Housing / Occupancy by minors

The HOA alleged the homeowner violated age restrictions by having her great-grandchildren and granddaughter live in the home. The homeowner claimed an accommodation for care, which the HOA later revoked upon finding the granddaughter worked outside the home during the day.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with Article 3, Section 3.1(b) of the CC&Rs and pay Petitioner the filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 3, Section 3.1(b)
  • Section 2.48

Decision Documents

16F-H1616007-BFS Decision – 500334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:56 (138.2 KB)

16F-H1616007-BFS Decision – 507052.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:56 (61.2 KB)

**Case Title:** *Province Community Association v. Caroll Gaines*
**Case No:** 16F-H1616007-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** Hearing held June 1, 2016; Final Certification July 14, 2016

### **Procedural Background**
This case involved a dispute between the Province Community Association ("Petitioner") and homeowner Caroll Gaines ("Respondent") regarding alleged violations of the community's age-restriction covenants. Province is a planned community intended primarily for residents aged 55 and older. The Petitioner sought enforcement of its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) after receiving complaints that the Respondent was allowing minors to occupy her home.

### **Key Facts**
* **The Restriction:** Article 3, Section 3.1(b) of the CC&Rs prohibits persons under 19 from "Occupying" a unit. "Occupy" is defined as actually residing in the unit for at least 90 days. Minors are permitted to stay overnight for up to 90 days per year but cannot occupy the home.
* **The Accommodation:** The Respondent, an elderly woman requiring care, previously received an accommodation allowing her granddaughter and minor great-grandchildren to live with her. The Association revoked this accommodation in October 2015 after determining the granddaughter was working/attending school rather than providing the requisite 24-hour care.
* **The Arrangement:** Following the revocation, the granddaughter and children ostensibly moved out in December 2015. However, testimony revealed that the Respondent’s daughter provided childcare for the minors at the Respondent’s home on weekdays from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Additionally, the granddaughter brought the children to the home on weekends.
* **Total Presence:** Testimony established that the minor children were physically present at the home for approximately 80 to 85 hours per week, despite generally not sleeping there overnight.

### **Main Issues**
The central legal issue was the interpretation of "Occupy" and "Reside" within the context of the CC&Rs.
1. **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Association argued that the continuous presence of the children violated the age-restriction intent and threatened the community’s status.
2. **Respondent’s Defense:** The Respondent argued compliance because the children did not stay overnight, and the CC&Rs specifically restricted "overnight" stays to 90 days.

### **Legal Findings and Analysis**
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky ruled in favor of the Petitioner, providing the following legal analysis:
* **Interpretation of "Reside":** The Judge determined that "reside" means to dwell for a "considerable time". The tribunal found that being present for 80 to 85 hours per week constitutes a "considerable time" and therefore amounts to residency/occupancy.
* **Purpose of the Restriction:** The Judge rejected the argument that "occupancy" requires sleeping overnight. The decision noted that if overnight stays were the only metric, residents could run daycare services from sunrise to sunset without violating the rules. Such an interpretation would cause the "exception [to] swallow the rule," undermining the community's age-restricted nature.
* **Conclusion on Violation:** The Petitioner met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, establishing that the Respondent had been in continuous violation of Article 3, Section 3.1(b) since August 2015.

### **Outcome**

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (Petitioner Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Rebecca Clark (Witness)
    Province Community Association (Member)
    Neighbor; resides at 19697 N. Heron Court
  • Rosemary Kuzmic (Witness)
    Province Community Association
    Member of Advisory Committee (shadow board)
  • Dayle Cruz (Witness)
    Post commander for Petitioner's security guards
  • Pamela Hilliard (Witness)
    Province Community Association
    Former Community Manager/Supervisor

Respondent Side

  • Caroll Gaines (Respondent)
    Province Community Association (Member)
    Homeowner; presented testimony
  • Robert J. Metli (Respondent Attorney)
    Munger Chadwick, PLC
  • Barbara Gaines (Witness)
    Respondent's daughter
  • Alisha Jennings (Witness)
    Respondent's granddaughter

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Debra Blake (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director
  • Greg Hanchett (Agency Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Interim Director; signed Certification of Decision
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Department of Real Estate
    Received copy of decision
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/processed certification

Kesha A. Hodge v. Cottonfields Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1516002-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-04-18
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kesha A. Hodge Counsel —
Respondent Cottonfields Community Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Declaration Section 14.2; REMA Article 5 § 5.1, Article 12

Outcome Summary

The ALJ recommended dismissal, finding that the Board's action to withdraw Notices of Errata did not legally amend the community documents and thus did not require the member approval mandated for amendments. The Department of Fire Building and Life Safety certified the decision.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the Withdrawals did not legally amend the Declaration or REMA, rendering the requirement for a member vote inapplicable.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Amendment/Withdrawal of Notices

Petitioner alleged that the Board's vote to withdraw Notices of Errata and allow the Golf Course Owner to use property differently constituted an amendment requiring a two-thirds member vote, which was not obtained.

Orders: Complaint dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

15F-H1516002-BFS Decision – 491229.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:05 (72.9 KB)

15F-H1516002-BFS Decision – 491324.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:05 (52.5 KB)

15F-H1516002-BFS Decision – 499789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:05 (60.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Hodge v. Cottonfields Community Association**
**Case No:** 15F-H1516002-BFS
**Tribunal:** Office of Administrative Hearings / Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

**Background and Facts**
Petitioner Kesha A. Hodge, a homeowner in the Cottonfields Community, filed a petition against the Respondent, Cottonfields Community Association. The dispute centered on the "Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement" (REMA) governing the community’s Golf Course Property.

In 2011, the Association's Board voted to amend the REMA ("Revisions") regarding the definition of the Golf Course Property. Due to disagreements over whether these Revisions required member approval, the Board recorded "Notices of Errata" stating the Revisions were void and unenforceable. In 2014, litigation arose between the Association and the golf course owner, Jaguar Premium Properties, LLP. To settle this litigation in July 2015, the Board voted to record "Notices of Withdrawal" regarding the previous Notices of Errata.

**Main Issues**
The central legal issue was whether the Board's July 2015 vote to record the Withdrawals constituted a modification of land use restrictions that required a vote of the membership.

* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner alleged that withdrawing the Notices of Errata effectively ratified the 2011 Revisions, thereby allowing the golf course owner to use the property for purposes other than open space or golf. The Petitioner argued this constituted a change to the use restrictions which, under Section 14.2 of the Declaration and Article 12 of the REMA, required written approval from two-thirds of the members.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The Association argued the Withdrawals were legally meaningless and did not render the 2011 Revisions valid. They asserted that because the Withdrawals were not amendments to community documents, the Board’s action did not require member approval and was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

**Hearing Proceedings and Analysis**
The matter was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes regarding violations of planned community documents.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) analyzed the legal effect of the recorded documents. The ALJ determined:
1. **Scope of Review:** The petition specifically challenged the July 2015 vote to record the Withdrawals, not the validity of the original 2011 Revisions.
2. **Legal Effect:** The ALJ found that just as the Notices of Errata did not legally rescind the Revisions, the Withdrawals did not legally ratify them. The Withdrawals essentially had "no legal effect amending the Declaration".
3. **Conclusion:** Because the Withdrawals did not legally amend the community documents, the Board was not required to obtain a two-thirds vote of the members. Therefore, the Board's vote to record the Withdrawals did not violate the Declaration.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ recommended that the complaint be dismissed. On June 3, 2016, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire and Life Safety because the Department took no action to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's recommendation within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kesha A. Hodge (Petitioner)
    Cottonfields Community
    Homeowner

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • M. Aguirre (Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Clerk/Admin
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Clerk/Admin

Walter Ward Griffith Jr. v. Alisanos Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1516011-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-04-08
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $750.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. Counsel —
Respondent Alisanos Community Association Counsel Mark Sahl, Esq. and Greg Stein, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 7.7

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner installed the tree ring without explicit written approval in 2009, the Respondent conducted routine inspections and had constructive notice of the improvement at that time but failed to object until 2014. Due to the delay and constructive notice, Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof to show a violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Exterior Alteration (Concrete Tree Ring)

Respondent alleged Petitioner violated CC&R Section 7.7 by installing a concrete ring around a jacaranda tree without Architectural Review Committee approval. Petitioner argued the ring was approved with the tree or that Respondent had constructive notice.

Orders: Respondent must repay to Petitioner his filing fee of $750.00.

Filing fee: $750.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 3
  • 4
  • 15
  • 16

Decision Documents

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 491042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:40 (92.5 KB)

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 499790.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:40 (60.3 KB)

**Case Summary: Griffith v. Alisanos Community Association**
**Case No:** 15F-H1516011-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** April 8, 2016 (Certified Final June 3, 2016)

**Proceedings and Issue**
This hearing involved a dispute between Petitioner Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. and Respondent Alisanos Community Association regarding the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). While the Petitioner initiated the action, the parties agreed to amend the hearing issue to determine whether the Petitioner violated CC&R Section 7.7, which prohibits exterior property alterations without Architectural Review Committee approval. The specific object in dispute was a concrete ring installed around a jacaranda tree in the Petitioner's yard.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Griffith received approval to plant the jacaranda tree in December 2008. He argued that his submitted plan included a "squiggly line" intended to represent the concrete ring, meaning the structure was approved. He completed the installation in early 2009. He further argued that the Association conducted inspections of his property in 2009 regarding a separate issue (artificial grass) and did not object to the ring at that time.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued the ring was never approved by the Committee. They asserted that they did not notice the ring until 2012 or 2013, claiming it only became visible after tree roots lifted it. The Association first issued a written notice of the alleged violation in January 2014.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden applied the preponderance of the evidence standard, noting that the Respondent bore the burden of proof to establish the violation.

1. **Approval Defense:** The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove the ring was explicitly approved in 2008. The judge noted that "squiggly lines" on landscape plans typically represent bushes or trees, not concrete structures.
2. **Constructive Notice:** Despite the lack of initial approval, the ALJ determined that the Respondent had **constructive notice** of the ring in 2009. This conclusion was based on evidence that the Association conducted routine inspections of the Petitioner's yard in 2009 and reserved the right to inspect completed improvements.
3. **Failure to Meet Burden:** Because the Association had constructive notice of the structure in 2009 but failed to inform the Petitioner of the alleged violation until 2014, the ALJ concluded the Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof that a violation of CC&R Section 7.7 existed at the time of the hearing.

**Outcome**
The ALJ ruled that the Petitioner was the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s $750.00 filing fee. The decision became final on June 3, 2016, after the relevant state department declined to modify or reject the ALJ's decision.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mark Sahl (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Appeared for Respondent
  • Greg Stein (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Appeared for Respondent
  • Brian Moore (board member)
    Alisanos Community Association
    Testified at hearing
  • Greg Kotsakis (committee member)
    Alisanos Community Association
    Architectural Review Committee member
  • Augustus Shaw (board member)
    Alisanos Community Association
    Mentioned in video recording regarding board meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Care of recipient for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certification

Robert A. White vs. Aspen Shadows Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-04-01
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert A. White Counsel —
Respondent Aspen Shadows Condominium Association Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1253
A.R.S. § 33-1247
CC&Rs 4.23
A.R.S. § 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed all claims. The HOA was found to be in compliance with insurance and records statutes. The maintenance issue involved a Limited Common Element for which the owner was responsible. The noise issue was barred by CC&R waivers and timing.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on all counts. The HOA demonstrated compliance with statutes (electronic records, reasonably available insurance) and the CC&Rs (Limited Common Element responsibility, noise waivers).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Maintain All-Risk Insurance

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to maintain required insurance coverage because the insurer denied a claim for a slow leak/construction defect.

Orders: Dismissed. Respondent maintained a policy; exclusions for slow leaks/defects are common and reasonably available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 4
  • 14
  • 16
  • 54
  • 55

Failure to Maintain Common Elements (Grinder Pump)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair a grinder pump damaged by storm runoff and improper installation.

Orders: Dismissed. Petitioner failed to prove the pump was defective. As a Limited Common Element, costs were assessable to Petitioner anyway.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 5
  • 28
  • 31
  • 56
  • 57

Failure to Enforce Floor Covering Restrictions

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce prohibitions against hard floor coverings in the unit above him, causing noise.

Orders: Dismissed. The flooring was installed years prior to Petitioner's purchase. Petitioner assumed risk of noise under CC&Rs.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 6
  • 41
  • 44
  • 58
  • 59

Failure to Provide Records (Resale Disclosure)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide paper copies of governing documents upon purchase, offering electronic versions instead.

Orders: Dismissed. The statute permits electronic delivery.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 7
  • 47
  • 59
  • 60

Decision Documents

16F-H1616001-BFS Decision – 488610.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:47 (203.0 KB)

16F-H1616001-BFS Decision – 495160.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:47 (59.8 KB)

Here is a concise summary of the hearing proceedings for Case No. 16F-H1616001-BFS.

**Case Overview**
**Petitioner:** Robert A. White (Owner of Unit 41)
**Respondent:** Aspen Shadows Condominium Association
**Hearing Date:** March 24, 2016
**Decision Date:** April 1, 2016 (Certified Final May 9, 2016)

The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding insurance coverage, common element maintenance, noise enforcement, and document delivery,.

**Key Issues and Arguments**

**1. Insurance Coverage (Water Damage)**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1253 and CC&R Article 8.1 by denying coverage for water damage caused by a leak from the unit above (Unit 42).
* **Arguments:** The Petitioner claimed the Association withdrew the claim, denying him protection. The Respondent argued it submitted the claim to Farmers Insurance, but the carrier denied it because the damage resulted from a "long-term" slow leak, a policy exclusion,.
* **Finding:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Association maintained the required insurance. The insurer's denial based on standard exclusions for maintenance issues (like slow leaks) did not constitute a violation by the Association,.

**2. Grinder Pump Liability**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner sought reimbursement for a grinder pump ($1,697.50) serving his unit, alleging it was damaged by storm runoff due to an improper diversion wall (a common element).
* **Arguments:** The Respondent contended the pump is a "Limited Common Element" serving only Unit 41. Evidence suggested the pump was previously functional and damage resulted from a dislodged lid allowing debris inside.
* **Finding:** The pump is a Limited Common Element. Under the CC&Rs, the Association may assess repair costs for such elements to the specific unit owner benefiting from them. The Petitioner failed to prove the pump was defective or that the Association was liable for the replacement.

**3. Hard Floor Noise Violation**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the unit above (Unit 42) had prohibited hard flooring, violating CC&R Article 4.23, and the Association failed to enforce the rule.
* **Arguments:** The Respondent noted the flooring was installed in 2008 (six years prior to the Petitioner's purchase) and argued the Petitioner assumed the risk of noise,.
* **Finding:** The CC&Rs contain a specific provision (Section 13.20) where owners assume the risk of noise and vibrations from adjacent units,. The Petitioner failed to establish the Association was liable for the potential violation or the resulting noise.

**4. Document Delivery**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner claimed the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by failing to provide paper copies of the CC&Rs and Bylaws before escrow closed.
* **Arguments:** The Respondent argued compliance by providing documents in electronic format, which the Petitioner refused to accept.
* **Finding:** A.R.S. § 33-1260 permits delivery in "either paper or electronic format". The Respondent’s use of electronic delivery was legal, and the Petitioner’s refusal to accept that format did not make the Association's actions a violation.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ determined the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated any statutes or CC&Rs,. The petition was **dismissed**, and no action was required of the Respondent. The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on May 9, 2016.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert A. White (Petitioner)
    Owner of Unit 41

Respondent Side

  • Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
    Choate & Seletos
    Represented Respondent
  • Melanie Lashlee (community manager)
    Testified for Respondent
  • Ty Hart (engineer)
    Flagstaff Ranch
    Facilities Engineer
  • Faith Johnson (escrow officer)
    Respondent's escrow officer, initials 'f.j.'

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Kenji Cassady (witness)
    Royal Plumbing, Inc.
    Plumber who repaired leak in Unit 42
  • Nicolas Boley (claims representative)
    Farmers Insurance
    Senior Field Claims Representative
  • Tyler (contractor)
    DC Restoration
    Mitigation contractor
  • Jacqueline Martinez (contractor)
    Damage Control AZ
    Sent email confirming leak duration
  • Dave Taylor (unit owner)
    Owner of Unit 42
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Agency head
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/transmitted decision

Maxine Fairbanks vs. Santa Bird Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1516012-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-03-28
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Maxine Fairbanks Counsel —
Respondent Santa Bird Condominium Association Counsel Julianne C. Wheeler

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1254
A.R.S. § 33-1243
A.R.S. § 33-1258
Declaration Paragraph 9E

Outcome Summary

Respondent admitted to all allegations regarding misuse of surplus monies, failure to adhere to budget, refusal to provide financial records, and unilateral board member decisions. The new Board committed to future compliance. Respondent was ordered to comply with statutes and CC&Rs and reimburse Petitioner's $2,000 filing fee. No civil penalty was imposed due to mitigating testimony from the new Board chairman.

Key Issues & Findings

Surplus monies

Allegation that the Board used surplus monies without an approved budget.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Budget adherence

Allegation that the Board failed to adhere to the approved budget.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Financial records

Allegation that the Board refused to provide a financial report.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Board voting

Allegation that an individual board member made decisions without a Board vote.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

15F-H1516012-BFS Decision – 487946.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:46 (113.1 KB)

15F-H1516012-BFS Decision – 495139.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:47 (61.2 KB)

**Case Overview**
In the matter of *Maxine Fairbanks v. Santa Bird Condominium Association* (Case No. 15F-H1516012-BFS), the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings adjudicated a dispute regarding the mismanagement of condominium association funds and governance procedures.

**Key Issues and Allegations**
The Petitioner, Maxine Fairbanks, alleged that the Respondent (the Association) violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The specific allegations included:
* **Surplus Monies:** Using surplus funds without an approved budget (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1254).
* **Budget Adherence:** Failing to adhere to the approved budget (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1243).
* **Financial Records:** Refusing to provide financial reports to members (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258).
* **Governance:** Allowing individual board members to make decisions without a formal vote of the Board (violation of Declaration Paragraph 9E).

**Hearing Proceedings and Arguments**
During the hearing on March 17, 2016, the Respondent was represented by a newly elected Board of Directors.
* **Admissions:** The Respondent **admitted to all allegations**, attributing the violations to the conduct of the previous Board.
* **Mitigation:** Patricia Benner, the chairman of the new Board, testified that the Association’s records were in "disarray" when they took office. She detailed extensive steps taken to achieve compliance, including hiring a management company.
* **Petitioner’s Request:** The Petitioner requested an order ensuring future compliance with statutes and governing documents.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party.
* **Violations Confirmed:** Based on the Respondent's admissions, the judge concluded that the Association had violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1254, 33-1243, 33-1258, and Paragraph 9E of the CC&Rs.
* **Mitigation Accepted:** The judge found Ms. Benner’s testimony credible and accepted the new Board's corrective actions as mitigation.

**Outcome and Order**
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders on March 28, 2016:
1. **Compliance:** The Respondent must fully comply with the applicable statutes and CC&Rs.
2. **Reimbursement:** The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner's **filing fee of $2,000.00** within 30 days.
3. **No Civil Penalty:** Due to the mitigating testimony regarding the new Board's efforts, no civil penalty was assessed.

**Final Status**
The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on May 9, 2016, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Maxine Fairbanks (Petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf; testified at hearing

Respondent Side

  • Julianne C. Wheeler (attorney)
    Jennings, Haugh & Cunningham, LLP
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Patricia Benner (witness)
    Santa Bird Condominium Association
    Chairman of the new Board; testified at hearing
  • Peggi Hollen (board member)
    Santa Bird Condominium Association
    Chairman (listed on mailing list)

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director
  • Greg Hanchett (Agency Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Interim Director; signed certification
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Agency Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing/transmission

Gainey Ranch Community Association v. MS Pavillions 35 LLC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1516009-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-03-11
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gainey Ranch Community Association and Pavilions Council of Co-Owners Counsel Beth Mulcahy
Respondent MS Pavillions 35 LLC Counsel Danielle K. Graham

Alleged Violations

Article VIII, Section 5(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner (HOA). It was determined that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs by removing a deck railing without explicit approval, rejecting the defense that approval for fascia replacement covered the railing removal. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to obtain approval for exterior changes (deck railing removal)

The HOA alleged the Respondent removed a deck railing without approval. The Respondent argued approval to replace fascia implicitly included railing removal. The ALJ found the Committee could not have known removal was necessary based on the application, thus specific approval was required and not obtained.

Orders: Respondent must comply with Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs and pay Petitioner's filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article VIII, Section 5(a)

Decision Documents

15F-H1516009-BFS Decision – 485540.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:34 (102.5 KB)

15F-H1516009-BFS Decision – 489011.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:35 (188.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Gainey Ranch Community Association v. MS Pavillions 35 LLC**
**Case No.** 15F-H1516009-BFS
**Date of Decision:** March 11, 2016

**Overview and Proceedings**
This hearing before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings addressed a dispute between Gainey Ranch Community Association and Pavilions Council of Co-Owners (Petitioners) and MS Pavillions 35 LLC (Respondent). The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas on February 26, 2016. The central issue was whether the Respondent violated the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by making unapproved exterior changes.

**Key Facts and Allegations**
The Petitioners alleged that the Respondent violated Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs by failing to obtain approval from the Architectural Committee prior to removing a deck railing. This section of the CC&Rs mandates prior written approval for any exterior changes, alterations, or repairs.

On January 15, 2015, the Master Architectural Committee (MAC) granted the Respondent approval to install "New metal flashing at patio". The Respondent subsequently removed the deck railing while performing this work.

**Main Arguments**
* **Petitioners' Argument:** The Association argued that the MAC approved only the metal flashing, not the railing removal. Witnesses testified that exterior changes require specific approval and that the removal of the railing was never discussed or approved during the January 15 meeting.
* **Respondent's Argument:** The Respondent contended that approval to remove the railing was a necessary element of the approved fascia installation. Michael Shotay, the managing member for the Respondent, testified that the railing was attached to the old wood flashing and had to be removed to replace the flashing. He argued that the MAC knew or should have known that installing the new fascia was impossible without removing the railing.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The ALJ acknowledged the Respondent's testimony that the railing was attached to the wood flashing due to a previous remodel.

However, the ALJ found that because the Respondent had relocated the railing during that previous remodel, the Architectural Committee would not have known that it was impossible to install the new fascia without removing the railing. Consequently, the MAC's approval for the flashing did not implicitly include approval to remove the railing.

**Outcome and Order**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, concluding that the Respondent failed to obtain the required approval prior to removing the deck railing. The Decision ordered the following:
1. **Compliance:** The Respondent must fully comply with Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs.
2. **Fees:** The Respondent must pay the Petitioners' filing fee of $550.00 within 30 days.
3. **Penalties:** No civil penalty was found to be appropriate.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Beth Mulcahy (Petitioner Attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm (implied)
    Represented Gainey Ranch Community Association and Pavilions Council of Co-Owners
  • Dee Bloom (Witness)
    Testified regarding the removal of the deck railing
  • James A. Funk (Witness)
    Gainey Ranch Community Association
    Executive Director and member of the Master Architectural Committee

Respondent Side

  • Danielle K. Graham (Respondent Attorney)
    Represented MS-Pavillions 35 LLC
  • Michael Shotay (Respondent Representative)
    MS-Pavillions 35 LLC
    Managing member; testified at hearing; spelled 'Shotey' in minutes but 'Shotay' in decision text
  • Tom Tedford (Contractor)
    Flo-Tech Inc.
    Mentioned in testimony as the contractor who performed the work

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director; transmitted decision

Arnold C. Williams vs. Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1516007-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-03-09
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arnold C. Williams Counsel —
Respondent Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc. Counsel Douglas W. Glasson

Alleged Violations

CC&R 7.4; CC&R 7.7

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found in favor of the Petitioner. The HOA admitted that the Board resolutions attempting to amend CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 were invalid as they lacked the required homeowner vote. Evidence showed the HOA failed to enforce the existing CC&Rs regarding service areas and parking. The HOA was ordered to enforce the CC&Rs and reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce CC&Rs and Invalid Board Resolutions

Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board failed to enforce CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 regarding trash/storage and vehicle parking, leading to neighborhood deterioration. Petitioner also alleged the Board illegally passed resolutions to amend these CC&Rs without the required homeowner vote. Respondent admitted the resolutions were invalid and unenforceable.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with CC&R 7.4 and 7.7; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $2,000.00; declared that any amendment to CC&Rs must be voted on by homeowners.

Filing fee: $2,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R 7.4
  • CC&R 7.7

Decision Documents

15F-H1516007-BFS Decision – 485232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:25 (106.6 KB)

15F-H1516007-BFS Decision – 492722.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:26 (60.1 KB)

**Case Summary: Arnold C. Williams v. Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc.**
**Case No. 15F-H1516007-BFS**

**Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a petition filed by homeowner Arnold C. Williams (Petitioner) against the Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc. (Respondent). The dispute concerned the Association's failure to enforce specific Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Board's attempt to amend governing documents without a homeowner vote,.

**Key Facts and Issues**
The Petitioner alleged the Respondent failed to enforce two specific provisions:
1. **CC&R 7.4:** Pertaining to the screening of service areas, trash accumulation, and the concealment of bins,.
2. **CC&R 7.7:** Prohibiting the parking or storage of boats, trucks, trailers, and RVs on streets or lots unless in an attached carport,.

The Petitioner argued that the Board passed resolutions regarding these rules that contradicted the CC&Rs and violated the requirement for a homeowner vote. He testified that the lack of enforcement led to a sharp decline in the neighborhood's appearance, citing an "onslaught" of RVs and weeds, which hindered his ability to sell his residence,.

**Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Williams argued the Board illegally altered CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 via board resolution rather than the required membership vote. He presented testimony that the neighborhood had deteriorated due to non-enforcement,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association admitted passing resolutions in 2009 and 2012 to "clarify" the CC&Rs. However, the Association conceded these resolutions were invalid and unenforceable because they conflicted with the existing CC&Rs,. Board members testified they had relied on incorrect advice from a previous management company, which claimed the Board could amend CC&Rs by resolution,. The Association’s counsel confirmed that valid amendments require a 75% affirmative vote from homeowners.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the preponderance of the evidence standard. The ALJ concluded:
* The Respondent admitted the resolutions passed to remedy "perceived problems" with the CC&Rs were invalid.
* The Petitioner credibly established that the Association was not enforcing CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7.
* The Association violated its governing documents by failing to enforce these rules and attempting improper amendments.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The Order mandated the following:
1. **Enforcement:** The Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of CC&R 7.4 and CC&R 7.7.
2. **Amendment Procedure:** Any future amendments to the CC&Rs must be voted on and passed by the homeowner members, as required by the governing documents.
3. **Monetary Award:** The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was assessed.

**Procedural Note**
The ALJ issued the decision on March 9, 2016. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the ALJ’s ruling was certified as the final administrative decision on April 26, 2016.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Arnold C. Williams (Petitioner)
    Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc. (Member)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Kenneth Elflein (Witness)
    Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc. (Resident)
    Testified regarding neighborhood deterioration

Respondent Side

  • Douglas W. Glasson (Respondent Attorney)
    Curl & Glasson, P.L.C.
    Represented Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
  • Nathan Tennyson (Witness)
    Brown Olcott PLLC
    General counsel for Sonoita; testified regarding CC&Rs
  • Scott DeRosa (Board Member)
    Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
    Testified regarding Board actions
  • Eloy Blanco (Board Member)
    Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
    Testified regarding Board meetings
  • Sarah Curley (Board President)
    Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
    Testified regarding CC&R amendments
  • Paul Gready (Property Manager)
    Express Property Management
    Testified as expert in HOA management

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director
  • Greg Hanchett (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Interim Director; certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certificate

Carol M. Root vs. Candlewood Estates at Troon North

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515014-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-03-28
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carol M. Root Counsel —
Respondent Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Candlewood Declaration Section 11.02; Section 11.03

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint, finding that the governing documents obligated the parties to use a specific Dispute Resolution process (mediation/arbitration). The Department of Fire Building and Life Safety certified this decision as final.

Why this result: The Petitioner was bound by the mandatory arbitration/mediation provisions in the governing documents, precluding administrative hearing jurisdiction.

Key Issues & Findings

Motion to Dismiss / Mandatory Dispute Resolution

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the CC&Rs require mandatory dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration) for all claims. Petitioner argued the amendment adding this clause was invalid.

Orders: The complaint was dismissed because the applicable governing documents require that the claim be handled through a mandatory Dispute Resolution process.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Candlewood Declaration Section 11.01
  • Candlewood Declaration Section 11.02
  • Candlewood Declaration Section 11.03
  • Master Declaration Article 16

Decision Documents

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 481408.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:51 (82.6 KB)

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 481409.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:52 (38.5 KB)

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 487851.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:52 (59.8 KB)

**Case Title:** *Carol M. Root v. Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association*
**Case Number:** 15F-H1515014-BFS

**Procedural History and Facts**
This matter came before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) regarding a dispute between Petitioner Carol M. Root and Respondent Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association. The Respondent filed a "Motion to Dismiss and Vacate Hearing," arguing that the OAH lacked jurisdiction because the community's governing documents mandated a specific Dispute Resolution process.

The relevant governing documents included the Master Declaration for Troon North and the Candlewood Declaration. Sections 11.02 and 11.03 of the Candlewood Declaration detailed mandatory procedures for "all Claims" arising from the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the documents. This process required notice, mediation, and binding arbitration through the Arbitration & Mediation Center of Arizona (AMCA).

**Key Arguments**
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The HOA asserted that the restrictive covenants act as a binding contract. Because the Declarations mandate alternative dispute resolution for all enforcement and interpretation claims, the Petitioner was preempted from pursuing remedies through the OAH.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner opposed dismissal on two grounds:
1. **Validity of Amendment:** She argued the 2004 amendment adding the dispute resolution clause was adopted in violation of the CC&Rs and was invalid. However, she presented no evidence that the amendment had ever been successfully challenged or legally determined to be invalid.
2. **Scope of Provision:** She argued that because Section 11.01 was titled "Agreement to Avoid Litigation," the provision only prohibited filing lawsuits in court, not filing administrative proceedings with the OAH.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer analyzed the covenants as a contract binding on the property owner. The ALJ rejected the Petitioner's arguments for the following reasons:
* **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner failed to provide evidence that the 2004 amendment was invalid.
* **Contract Interpretation:** The ALJ found that Section 11.02 clearly defines "all Claims" broadly. While Section 11.01 mentions avoiding litigation, the plain language of the subsequent sections mandates that any dispute regarding the governing documents must be handled through the specific Dispute Resolution process.
* **Conclusion:** The covenants explicitly prevent the dispute from being brought in the OAH.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
On February 17, 2016, the ALJ issued a decision recommending that the complaint be dismissed.

The decision was transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety for review. The Department did not take action to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Therefore, pursuant to A.R.S. § 4

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carol M. Root (Petitioner)

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • F. Del Sol (Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed copy distribution
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed copy distribution