Debenedictis, Joseph vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on October 2, 2012 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212006-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Joseph DeBenedictis	Counsel	M. Philip Escolar
Respondent	Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Paragraph 4.G

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove an existing violation of the CC&Rs. The Petitioner did not establish that a property transfer had occurred triggering the disputed assessment.

Why this result: Failure to prove an existing violation; the tribunal declined to rule on hypothetical future actions.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to impose initial regular assessment

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by failing to collect a $400 assessment when parcels were transferred. Respondent argued the fee only applied to initial developer transfers.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Paragraph 4.G

Decision Documents

12F-H1212006-BFS Decision – 308828.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:38 (83.7 KB)

12F-H1212006-BFS Decision – 313213.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:38 (54.7 KB)

**Case Title:** *Joseph DeBenedictis v. Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212006-BFS

**Overview and Parties**
This matter came before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between homeowner Joseph DeBenedictis (Petitioner) and the Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (Respondent),. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The core legal issue was the interpretation and enforcement of "Paragraph 4.G" of the CC&Rs regarding a $400 initial regular assessment.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** The Petitioner argued that the CC&Rs required the Respondent to assess and collect a $400 fee every time a parcel within the community was transferred to a new party. The Petitioner claimed the Association violated the governing documents by failing to impose this fee,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Respondent argued that the $400 assessment was only applicable when a parcel was first transferred from the developer or divided from a larger parcel. Additionally, the Respondent presented evidence of a March 2011 settlement agreement from the Superior Court of Maricopa County. In that settlement, the Respondent had explicitly agreed *not* to assess this specific $400 fee against any past, present, or future Association members,.

**Hearing Proceedings**
An administrative hearing was held on September 12, 2012, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving that a violation of the CC&Rs occurred by a "preponderance of the evidence".

**Findings and Legal Analysis**
The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The decision focused on the lack of evidence regarding an actual violation rather than a definitive interpretation of the CC&R text itself.

* **Lack of Evidence:** The ALJ noted that even assuming, *arguendo*, that the Petitioner’s interpretation of the CC&Rs was correct, he failed to present evidence that a specific parcel transfer had occurred since the 2011 settlement agreement where the Respondent failed to collect the fee.
* **Existing vs. Future Violations:** The ALJ determined that while the settlement agreement indicated the Respondent's future intent regarding the fee, the Petitioner did not establish that an actual violation existed at the time of the hearing. The ALJ stated it would be inappropriate to address "possible future violations".

**Final Decision and Outcome**
* **ALJ Order:** On October 2, 2012, the ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed, finding that no action was required of the Respondent.
* **Final Certification:** On November 7, 2012, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety certified the ALJ’s ruling as the final administrative decision, as no action was taken to reject or modify it within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joseph DeBenedictis (petitioner)
Sunrise Desert Vistas (Resident)
Represented by M. Philip Escolar
M. Philip Escolar (attorney)
Counsel for Petitioner

Respondent Side

Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (respondent)
Organization/Association
Grace Violette (president)
Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association
Represented Respondent

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Holly Textor (recipient)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Gene Palma

Sallus, Suzanne vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on October 2, 2012 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212008-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Suzanne Sallus	Counsel	M. Philip Escolar
Respondent	Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1806

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide legally required resale disclosure documents directly to the purchaser within the statutory timeframe. The HOA's reliance on its website was deemed insufficient as the website did not contain all required information (specifically regarding financials and pending litigation).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide resale disclosure documents

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required documents upon pending sale of the property. Respondent argued directing the title agent to the website was sufficient. The ALJ found the website did not contain all required documents and that Respondent failed to disclose pending litigation.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1806 and provide copies of all required documents within 10 days; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1806
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)

Decision Documents

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – 308830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:57 (122.1 KB)

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – 313396.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:58 (59.0 KB)

**Case Title:** *Suzanne Sallus v. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212008-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

### **Proceedings and Key Facts**
On September 12, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over a hearing regarding a petition filed by Suzanne Sallus (Petitioner) against the Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (Respondent). The dispute arose from Petitioner's purchase of a property within the community in early 2011.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide required disclosure documents within ten days of receiving notice of the pending sale,. On March 12, 2011, Petitioner's title agency contacted Respondent requesting information on fees and assessments. Respondent replied by email providing assessment figures and directing the agent to the association's website for the CC&Rs and Bylaws. Escrow closed on April 2, 2011, without Petitioner receiving the full statutory disclosures,.

### **Main Legal Issues and Arguments**
The central legal question was whether Respondent’s actions satisfied the disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1806.

* **Adequacy of Electronic Delivery:** Respondent argued that directing Petitioner’s agent to the association's website satisfied the requirement to provide documents in "paper or electronic format". The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected this argument because the website did not contain all required documents. Specifically, the website's "Financials" page merely stated that reports were available "on request," which did not meet the statutory obligation to deliver the current operating budget and most recent annual financial report.

* **Missing Statements:** Respondent admitted it failed to provide a dated statement containing mandatory disclosures, including insurance coverage details, reserve amounts, and a statement regarding alteration violations.

* **Pending Litigation Disclosure:** A.R.S. § 33-1806 requires associations to summarize pending lawsuits. Respondent argued that two lawsuits (*Violette* and *Given*) did not need to be disclosed because settlement agreements were signed in February 2011. However, the ALJ determined that because the official dismissals for these cases were not entered by the Superior Court until March 16 and March 21, 2011—after Respondent received notice of the sale—the lawsuits were legally "pending" and should have been disclosed.

### **Final Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ ruled in favor of Petitioner, concluding that she established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806,.

**The Order required Respondent to:**
1. Comply with the statute and provide Petitioner with copies of all required documents within ten days.
2. Reimburse Petitioner the $550.00 filing fee within 30 days.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on November 8, 2012, after the Department took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's ruling,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Suzanne Sallus (Petitioner)
Sallus Family Trust
Served as member of SDV Board of Directors from May 2011 through April 2012
M. Philip Escolar (attorney)
Escolar Law Office
Represented Petitioner

Respondent Side

Grace Violette (board member)
Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association
President of Respondent; represented Respondent at hearing; also named in separate lawsuit dismissed March 2011

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision
Holly Textor (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing distribution

Yuille, John vs. Harmon, Connie, et. al.

Posted on September 18, 2012 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112005-BFS-res
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-09-18
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John Yuille	Counsel	—
Respondent	Caida Court Homeowner Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent failed to call, notice, and hold a special meeting to remove the Petitioner from the Board of Directors within the statutory thirty-day timeframe upon receipt of a petition. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute, refund the filing fee, and pay a civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to propertly call and notice special meeting for board removal

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to deliver the recall petition and follow statutory procedures for removing a board member. The Respondent admitted to a lack of removal information and possible failure to follow statute.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future; Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $550.00; Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)
A.R.S. § 33-1248

Decision Documents

11F-H1112005-BFS Decision – 307243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:46 (83.2 KB)

11F-H1112005-BFS Decision – 311519.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:47 (59.7 KB)

**Case Summary: Yuille v. Caida Court Homeowner Association**
**Case No.:** 11F-H1112005-BFS-res
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** September 13, 2012 (Hearing); October 24, 2012 (Final Certification)

**Proceedings**
This administrative hearing addressed a petition filed by John Yuille (Petitioner) against the Caida Court Homeowner Association (Respondent). The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent failed to appear at the hearing,. The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The dispute arose after the Petitioner, who served as Chairman of the Board of Management for Caida Court, was recalled from his position on August 24, 2011.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Mr. Yuille alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) regarding the procedure for removing a board member. He testified that he returned from a trip to find a special meeting for his removal already in progress. He requested a copy of the recall petition but was never provided one, leading him to believe a written petition did not actually exist,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Although absent from the hearing, the Respondent submitted a written Answer admitting that they "possibly did not follow the statute 33-1248" due to a lack of removal information and apologized for the error.

**Legal Issues and Findings**
The primary legal issue was whether the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), which mandates specific timelines and notice requirements for calling a special meeting upon receipt of a removal petition,.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H). The decision was based on undisputed credible testimony establishing that the Respondent failed to call, notice, and hold the special meeting to remove the Petitioner within thirty days after receiving the petition, as required by law.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party. The Order mandated the following:
1. **Future Compliance:** The Respondent was ordered to comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future.
2. **Reimbursement:** The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner $550.00 to cover his filing fee.
3. **Civil Penalty:** The Respondent was assessed a civil penalty of $200.00, payable to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 24, 2012, as the Department took no action to modify or reject the Judge's decision within the statutory review period,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Yuille (petitioner)
Caida Court Homeowner Association
Appeared on own behalf; former Chairman of the Board

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision
Holly Textor (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing distribution c/o Gene Palma

Yuille, John vs. Caida Court Homeowner Association

Posted on September 18, 2012 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112005-BFS-res
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-09-18
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	Yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John Yuille	Counsel	—
Respondent	Caida Court Homeowner Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) by failing to call, notice, and hold a special meeting regarding the removal of the Petitioner from the Board within the statutory 30-day period. The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fees and a civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold special meeting for board removal

Petitioner alleged that Respondent failed to deliver the petition before the meeting to recall the board chairman and failed to comply with statutory requirements for a recall meeting. The ALJ found the Respondent failed to hold the meeting within the required 30-day timeframe.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future; Respondent shall pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee; Respondent shall pay the Department a civil penalty of $200.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)

Decision Documents

11F-H1112005-BFS-res Decision – 307243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:10 (83.2 KB)

11F-H1112005-BFS-res Decision – 311519.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:10 (59.7 KB)

Here is a summary of the administrative hearing proceedings for Case No. 11F-H1112005-BFS-res.

**Case Title:** *John Yuille v. Caida Court Homeowner Association*
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

**Hearing Proceedings**
The hearing took place on September 13, 2012. The Petitioner, John Yuille, appeared on his own behalf regarding a dispute over his removal as Chairman of the Board of Management for Caida Court Homeowner Association,. The Respondent, Caida Court, failed to appear at the hearing.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner was recalled from his position as Board Chairman on August 24, 2011. He filed a petition alleging that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) by failing to provide him with a copy of the recall petition before the meeting where he was removed,.

* **Petitioner’s Testimony:** Mr. Yuille testified that he returned from an out-of-state trip to find a special meeting underway regarding his removal. He requested a copy of the recall petition but was never provided one, leading him to believe a written petition did not actually exist,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Although the Respondent did not attend the hearing, they submitted a written Answer admitting that they "possibly did not follow the statute" due to a lack of removal information, though they noted a 10-3 vote in favor of recall.

**Key Legal Issues**
The central legal issue was whether the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), which governs the removal of board members. The statute requires specific procedures for handling recall petitions, including calling, noticing, and holding a special meeting within thirty days after the receipt of a petition.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner.

* **Findings:** The ALJ concluded that the Respondent failed to "call, notice, and hold the special meeting… within thirty days after receipt of the petition," thereby violating A.R.S. § 33-1243(H).
* **Orders:**
1. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future.
2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Certification**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 24, 2012,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Yuille (petitioner)
Caida Court Homeowner Association
Member and former Chairman of the Board; appeared on his own behalf

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Director of the agency
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
OAH
Director of Office of Administrative Hearings; signed Certification of Decision
Holly Textor (administrative staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed c/o for Gene Palma on mailing list

Debenedictis, Joseph vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on September 10, 2012 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212005-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2012-09-06
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Joseph DeBenedictis	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sunrise Desert Vistas POA	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Paragraph 4(D); Bylaws Article IX, Section 8

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to identify a statute or provision of the governing documents that was violated by the Respondent's failure to repay the promissory note. The cited provisions did not mandate the repayment as alleged.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to state a cause of action as the cited CC&R and Bylaw provisions did not apply to the repayment of an unsecured promissory note.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Repay Promissory Notes

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repay a promissory note, arguing that the power to borrow in the CC&Rs implied a duty to repay and that the note constituted a 'charge' under the Bylaws.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&Rs Paragraph 4(D)
Bylaws Article IX, Section 8

Decision Documents

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306391.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:32 (73.7 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306394.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:33 (38.0 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306585.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:33 (73.7 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 310502.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:33 (56.3 KB)

**Case Summary: Joseph DeBenedictis v. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA**
**Case No. 12F-H1212005-BFS**

**Proceedings and Parties**
This administrative hearing involved Petitioner Joseph DeBenedictis and Respondent Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association. The dispute arose from the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent failed to act regarding the repayment of promissory notes. The hearing was conducted by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings under the authority of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Key Arguments and Legal Issues**
The central issue was whether the HOA's failure to repay a promissory note constituted a violation of the community's governing documents. To establish jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), the Petitioner was required to identify specific provisions of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or Bylaws that were violated.

The Petitioner advanced two main arguments:
1. **Power to Borrow:** The Petitioner cited a CC&R provision granting the Association the "power to borrow and encumber its assets," arguing that this power included an implicit obligation to repay,.
2. **Duty to Pay Liens/Charges:** The Petitioner cited Article IX, Section 8 of the Bylaws, which requires the Board to pay taxes, special assessments, and "charges which are or would become a lien on Association owned or maintained property",.

**Tribunal Analysis and Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer rejected both arguments, providing the following legal analysis:

* **Interpretation of "Power to Borrow":** The ALJ determined that the plain language of the CC&Rs granted the power to borrow but did not contain language regarding the repayment of money. Therefore, the provision did not support the alleged violation.
* **Interpretation of "Charges" and "Liens":** The ALJ ruled that a promissory note does not fall within the specific definition of the Bylaws provision cited. The note was not a tax, special assessment, or "charge." Furthermore, the ALJ noted that the Bylaw contemplates items that result in a lien on property; a promissory note is distinguishable as it is not necessarily secured by property. Consequently, the failure to pay the note was not a violation of the duty to pay lienable charges,.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to identify a statute or provision of the CC&Rs or Bylaws that was violated by the Respondent. As a result, the Petitioner failed to state a cause of action adjudicable by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

* **Ruling:** The Petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent.
* **Final Certification:** The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify the decision. Consequently, the ALJ’s decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 16, 2012,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joseph DeBenedictis (Petitioner)
Homeowner

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing list for Gene Palma
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Holly Textor (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing list (c/o) for Gene Palma

Johnson, Martin W. vs. Ciento Homeowners Association

Posted on August 14, 2012 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-08-14
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Martin W. Johnson	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association	Counsel	Lydia Peirce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

Article XII, Section 5 of CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its governing documents. The ALJ determined the water damage dispute was effectively between the Petitioner and the upstairs unit owner, and the HOA was not obligated to intervene or reimburse under the circumstances.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the tribunal found the issue to be a dispute between owners rather than an HOA violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce repair reimbursement for water damage

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce CC&Rs requiring it to repair damages caused by an owner's negligence (upstairs unit) and charge that owner, following multiple water leaks.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Article XII, Section 5 of CC&Rs
Rules and Regulations Article II, Section 8

Decision Documents

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 304220.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:43 (116.0 KB)

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 308686.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:43 (56.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Martin W. Johnson v. The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1212007-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Decision:** August 14, 2012 (Certified Final October 1, 2012)

**Overview and Key Facts**
Petitioner Martin W. Johnson, owner of condominium unit 117E, filed a petition alleging that The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association ("HOA") failed to enforce its governing documents regarding water damage caused by a neighboring unit.

The dispute arose from five separate water intrusion incidents between September 2009 and January 2012. The leaks originated from unit 217E, located directly above the Petitioner’s unit. Unit 217E was owned by Kenneth Hamby (the Board Treasurer) and occupied by a tenant. The causes of damage included clogged toilets, defective drains, and overflowing bathtubs attributed to the upstairs tenant’s negligence.

Following the initial and most severe incident in 2009, the Petitioner’s insurance company paid $22,762.74 for restoration. The Petitioner sought reimbursement and intervention from the HOA, arguing the Board had an obligation to oversee tenants and enforce bylaws regarding damage caused by other units.

**Main Legal Issues**
1. **Enforcement of CC&Rs:** Whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by refusing to repair the damages and charge the owner of unit 217E.
2. **Jurisdiction and Liability:** Whether the dispute was a matter of HOA enforcement or a private "owner-to-owner" dispute.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Dr. Johnson argued that Article XII, Section 5 of the CC&Rs authorized the HOA to repair damage caused by negligence and charge the responsible owner. He claimed the Board refused to exercise this authority or provide oversight of the upstairs tenant.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The HOA contended that this was fundamentally an owner-to-owner dispute. They argued the HOA is not a police agency, cannot vet landlords' tenants, and cannot compel one owner to reimburse another for expenses.

**Tribunal Findings and Legal Analysis**
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella ruled in favor of the HOA, dismissing the petition based on the following legal points:

* **Bur

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Martin W. Johnson (Petitioner)
Former Owner (Unit 117E)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (Attorney)
Brown/Olcott, PLLC
Representing The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association
Kenneth Hamby, Jr. (Board Member)
The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association
Treasurer of the Board; Owner of unit 217E
Debra Katzenberger (Property Manager)
Associated Property Management (APM)

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision

Butler, Clifford and Jean vs. Happy Trails Community Association

Posted on July 2, 2012 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212004-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-07-05
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Clifford and Jean Butler	Counsel	—
Respondent	Happy Trails Community Association	Counsel	Maria Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 1.31; Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated the CC&Rs. The governing documents require a Residence Vehicle to be present for occupancy, and the Arizona Room cannot serve as the main residence.

Why this result: The Petitioners failed to prove a violation because the plain language of the CC&Rs supports the HOA's requirement that a Residence Vehicle be present on the lot for residency.

Key Issues & Findings

Enforcement of Residence Vehicle Policy

Petitioners alleged that the HOA enforced a policy preventing residents from living in an Arizona Room without a Residence Vehicle on the lot, arguing this policy was unreasonable and contrary to the CC&Rs.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed. No action is required of Happy Trails.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&Rs Section 1.31
CC&Rs Section 11.1

Decision Documents

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 300400.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:25 (93.4 KB)

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 304741.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:25 (61.4 KB)

**Case Summary: Clifford and Jean Butler v. Happy Trails Community Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1212004-BFS

**Overview and Proceedings**
On June 18, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella presided over a hearing regarding a dispute between Petitioners Clifford and Jean Butler and Respondent Happy Trails Community Association. The Butlers sought to challenge the Association's enforcement of residency requirements within the Happy Trails planned community.

**Key Facts**
The Butlers, full-time residents of Happy Trails for approximately 12 years, resided on a lot containing a "Residence Vehicle" (RV) and a separate structure known as an "Arizona Room". After selling their RV, the Butlers attempted to reside solely in their Arizona Room. The Association issued a "Courtesy Notice" stating that living in an Arizona Room without an RV on the property violated the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Guidelines.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The central issue was whether the Association’s policy requiring the presence of an RV to reside on a lot violated the CC&Rs.

* **Petitioners’ Argument:** The Butlers argued the policy was unreasonable, costly, and unsupported by the CC&Rs. They testified that maintaining an unused RV was financially burdensome due to depreciation, insurance, and licensing costs. They further argued that the Association had historically condoned residents living in Arizona Rooms full-time without RVs.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The Association contended that the CC&Rs explicitly require owners to occupy a Residence Vehicle as their main residence. They asserted that while owners may occupy an Arizona Room, they must do so contemporaneously with the required RV. The Association’s Board noted they do not grant variances to this rule to avoid setting a precedent.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association, concluding that the Butlers failed to prove a violation of the governing documents.

The decision relied heavily on the specific language of the CC&Rs:
1. **Definition of Arizona Room:** The CC&Rs define an Arizona Room as a structure used for residential purposes "but that does not serve as the main residence on the Lot".
2. **Residency Requirement:** The documents state that individuals "may only reside in a Residence Vehicle" and that no other portion of the lot may be occupied as a residence.
3. **Contemporaneous Use:** The Judge determined that while an Arizona Room may be occupied, it cannot replace the RV as the main residence; therefore, an RV must be present on the lot.

**Outcome**
The ALJ recommended that the Petition be dismissed, finding that Happy Trails’ enforcement actions comported with the provisions of the governing CC&Rs.

**Final Status**
On August 20, 2012, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ’s decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, as the Department took no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Clifford Butler (petitioner)
Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
Appeared on own behalf
Jean Butler (petitioner)
Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
Appeared on own behalf
Sal Ognibene (witness)
Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
Called by Mr. Butler

Respondent Side

Maria Kupillas (attorney)
Farley, Seletos & Choate
Represented Happy Trails Community Association
Beth McWilliams (community manager)
Happy Trails Community Association
Testified regarding amendments and violations
Jim Weihman (board president)
Happy Trails Community Association
Testified regarding variances and waivers

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (agency director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Director
Cliff J. Vanell (OAH director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision
Beth Soliere (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted decision

Vise, Robert L. vs. East 12 Condo HOA

Posted on June 18, 2012 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212003-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2012-06-18
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Robert L. Vise	Counsel	—
Respondent	East 12 Condo HOA	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1253(H); CC&Rs Section 5(H)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his roof was damaged. Therefore, the issue of whether insurance proceeds should be used for repair or placed in a contingency fund was moot regarding his specific claim.

Why this result: Insufficient evidence presented to prove the existence of roof damage requiring repair.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Repair Common Elements/Misuse of Insurance Proceeds

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the statute and CC&Rs by placing insurance proceeds into a contingency fund rather than repairing his roof, which he claimed was damaged.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

12F-H1212003-BFS Decision – 295469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:20 (84.9 KB)

12F-H1212003-BFS Decision – 302544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:20 (57.2 KB)

**Case Title:** *Robert L. Vise v. East 12 Condo HOA*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212003-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Final Certification:** July 26, 2012

**Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a dispute between a condominium unit owner (Petitioner) and the Homeowners Association (Respondent) regarding the allocation of insurance proceeds and the responsibility for roof repairs.

**Key Facts and Proceedings**
* **The Incident:** Following a storm in late 2010, the Association submitted a claim under a blanket insurance policy. The insurer paid approximately $3,374.39 for wind damage.
* **Allocation of Funds:** Because damage varied across units, the Board was unsure how to equitably distribute the proceeds. A vote of the membership was held in April 2011, resulting in an 8-to-4 decision to place the insurance proceeds into a contingency fund rather than funding specific repairs immediately.
* **Petitioner’s Claim:** The Petitioner alleged that his roof sustained damage that the Association failed to repair, violating A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) and Section 5(H) of the CC&Rs. He argued the insurance proceeds should be used for his roof repairs and sought reimbursement for filing and attorney fees.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association presented testimony from Board members and a neighbor sharing the Petitioner's roof structure. They testified that the damage identified in estimates belonged to the neighbor's unit, not the Petitioner’s.

**Key Legal Arguments and Analysis**
* **Burden of Proof:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association violated state statute or the CC&Rs.
* **Evidence of Damage:** The hearing featured conflicting evidence. While the Petitioner provided photographs and contractor estimates, the Respondent provided witness testimony disputing the location of the damage.
* **Self-Repair Complication:** The Petitioner admitted to performing some repairs himself following the storm. The ALJ noted that this action may have obscured evidence, making it difficult to verify what damage, if any, existed prior to his intervention.
* **Statutory Obligations:** A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) requires associations to repair damaged common elements for which insurance is required. However, the applicability of this statute relied on the proven existence of damage.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
* **Findings:** The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove that his roof was actually damaged or required repair. Because the existence of damage was not established, the ALJ did not need to rule on whether the placement of insurance proceeds into a contingency fund was improper.
* **Ruling:** The ALJ determined the Respondent did not violate the CC&Rs or A.R.S. § 33-1253(H).
* **Order:** The Petition was dismissed, and the Petitioner’s request for fees and relief was denied.
* **Certification:** The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not modify or reject the decision within the statutory timeframe; thus, the ALJ decision was certified as the final administrative decision on July 26, 2012.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Robert L. Vise (Petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Diane Gorinac (Board Chairman)
East 12 Condo HOA
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Donna Armstrong (Witness)
Shares duplex unit with Petitioner
Lorraine Matts (Board member)
East 12 Condo HOA
Testified regarding damage estimates

Neutral Parties

Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in transmission attention line

Tobin, Allen R. vs. Sunland Village Community Association (ROOT)

Posted on May 9, 2012 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112006-BFS, 11F-H1112010-BFS, 12F-H121001-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-04-30
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,650.00
Civil Penalties	$600.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Allen R. Tobin	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sunland Village Community Association	Counsel	Jason E. Smith, Esq.; Lindsey O’Conner, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article V, Section 7
Article XII, Section 2
Article VI (D)(7)

Outcome Summary

The homeowner prevailed on claims regarding the lack of quorum for a Board meeting and unauthorized legal expenditures. The HOA prevailed on the claim that the homeowner violated notice requirements for bylaw amendments.

Why this result: The homeowner lost one issue because he failed to provide the required advance written notice for bylaw amendments presented at the annual meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Lack of Quorum at Board Meeting

Petitioner alleged a minority of the Board met without a quorum to invalidate actions taken at the annual meeting. The ALJ found that three members did not constitute a quorum.

Orders: Sunland ordered to comply with Article V, Section 7 of Bylaws; pay $550 filing fee to Tobin; pay $200 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Failure to Provide Notice of Bylaw Amendments

Sunland (as Petitioner in consolidated Docket 11F-H1112010-BFS) alleged Tobin violated bylaws by proposing amendments at the annual meeting without required notice. ALJ found Tobin violated the notice requirement.

Orders: Tobin ordered to pay Sunland's $550 filing fee and a $200 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Unauthorized Legal Expenditures

Petitioner alleged Association funds were used for legal fees without Board approval. ALJ found manager and three directors met with attorney without Board direction or reporting costs to the full Board.

Orders: Sunland ordered to comply with Policy Manual Article VI (D)(7); pay $550 filing fee to Tobin; pay $200 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Decision Documents

11F-H1112006-BFS Decision – 292297.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:16 (135.4 KB)

11F-H1112006-BFS Decision – 295402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:16 (62.4 KB)

**Case Summary: Tobin v. Sunland Village Community Association**
**Docket Nos:** 11F-H1112006-BFS, 11F-H1112010-BFS, 12F-H121001-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings / Dept. of Fire, Building and Life Safety
**Date of Final Certification:** June 15, 2012

**Overview**
This proceeding consolidated three administrative disputes between homeowner Allen R. Tobin and the Sunland Village Community Association regarding governance violations, specifically concerning Bylaw amendments, Board quorum requirements, and unauthorized legal expenditures.

**Proceedings and Legal Arguments**

**1. Improper Board Meeting (Docket No. 11F-H1112006-BFS)**
* **Petitioner:** Allen R. Tobin.
* **Issue:** Tobin alleged that a minority of the Board of Directors met on February 11, 2011, to conduct business without a quorum. The meeting was held to address complaints regarding the annual meeting, and the attendees declared actions taken at that annual meeting null and void.
* **Key Legal Point:** Article V, Section 7 of the Bylaws requires a majority of directors (four of the six serving members) to constitute a quorum to take lawful action. Only three directors were present.
* **Decision:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Association violated the Bylaws by conducting business and declaring amendments void without a quorum.
* **Outcome:** **Tobin prevailed.** Sunland was ordered to comply with quorum bylaws, reimburse Tobin’s $550 filing fee, and pay a $200 civil penalty.

**2. Improper Bylaw Amendments (Docket No. 11F-H1112010-BFS)**
* **Petitioner:** Sunland Village Community Association.
* **Issue:** Sunland alleged that Tobin violated the Bylaws during the January 12, 2011, annual meeting by making motions to amend the Bylaws from the floor without prior notice.
* **Key Legal Point:** Article XII, Section 2 of the Bylaws requires that notice of proposed amendments be given to members in the same manner as notice of the annual meeting (at least 10 days in advance). Tobin admitted he provided no written notice.
* **Decision:** The ALJ rejected Tobin's argument that the floor vote waived the notice requirement. The ALJ ruled that Tobin violated Article XII, Section 2 by presenting motions without required notice.
* **Outcome:** **Sunland prevailed.** Tobin was ordered to reimburse Sunland’s $550 filing fee and pay a $200 civil penalty.

**3. Unauthorized Legal Expenditures (Docket No. 12F-H121001-BFS)**
* **Petitioner:** Allen R. Tobin.
* **Issue:** Tobin alleged that the Association manager and three Board members incurred legal fees without Board direction or knowledge.
* **Key Legal Point:** Article VI (D)(7) of the Policy Manual requires that all contact with the law firm be at the Board's direction and that detailed billings be provided to all Board members. The manager and a minority of directors met with counsel without informing the full Board.
* **Decision:** The ALJ found Sunland violated the Policy Manual because the legal expenses were incurred without the direction or consent of a quorum of the Board.
* **Outcome:** **Tobin prevailed.** Sunland was ordered to comply with the Policy Manual, reimburse Tobin’s $550 filing fee, and pay a $200 civil penalty.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ’s decisions were certified as final on June 15, 2012, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify them within the statutory period.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Allen R. Tobin (petitioner)
Sunland Village Community Association
Homeowner and Board Member; appeared on his own behalf
Linda Wagner (witness)
Sunland Village Community Association
Board member; testified she was not informed of legal meetings
Verworst (board member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Board member not present at Feb 11 meeting

Respondent Side

Jason E. Smith (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
Attorney for Sunland
Lindsey O’Conner (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
Attorney for Sunland
Gordon Clark (property manager)
Sunland Village Community Association
Full time employee-manager; witness
Richard Gaffney (board member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Board Member present at Feb 11 meeting
Kathrine J. Lovitt (board member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Vice President; referred to as Kitty Lovitt
Jack Cummins (board member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Board Member present at Feb 11 meeting
Erwin Paulson (homeowner)
Sunland Village Community Association
Member who filed written objection to Tobin's motions
Scott Carpenter (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
Attorney paid from Association funds
Penny Gaffney (party (civil suit))
Named in civil action filed by Tobin
Marriane Clark (party (civil suit))
Named in civil action filed by Tobin
Robert Lovitt (party (civil suit))
Named in civil action filed by Tobin
Karin Cummins (party (civil suit))
Named in civil action filed by Tobin

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (agency director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Director
Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Director who certified the decision
Beth Soliere (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted decision

Brown, William M. vs. Terravita Country Club Inc.

Posted on May 8, 2012 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-05-08
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William M. Brown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Terravita Country Club, Inc.	Counsel	Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, although it provided the policy, it did not do so within the mandatory ten business days. The late delivery was attributed to an unintentional computer error. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $550.00 filing fee, but no civil penalties were assessed against the Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy) within ten business days

Petitioner requested a copy of the Respondent's Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy. Respondent failed to provide the policy within the statutory ten business day period, allegedly due to a computer error where the email became stuck in an outbox.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $550.00. No civil penalty imposed as Respondent attempted to comply.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 292130.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:36 (81.4 KB)

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 295358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:36 (60.5 KB)

Based on the provided sources, here is a summary of the administrative hearing for *William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.* (Case No. 11F-H1112007-BFS). Please note that the case number in the provided documents differs from the one listed in your query.

### Case Overview
**Petitioner:** William M. Brown
**Respondent:** Terravita Country Club, Inc.
**Case Number:** 11F-H1112007-BFS
**Tribunal:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Decision:** May 8, 2012 (Certified Final on June 14, 2012),

### Key Facts and Proceedings
The dispute arose from a records request made by the Petitioner, a resident of the Respondent's planned community. On October 21, 2011, the Petitioner emailed the Respondent requesting a copy of the "Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy".

The Respondent’s Custodian of Records initially provided a "Certificate of Insurance Liability" rather than the full policy. The Petitioner clarified his request later that day. On November 4, 2011, the Custodian attempted to email the correct policy to the Petitioner. However, she testified that the email became "stuck" in her outbox due to a computer error and was not successfully delivered until November 7, 2011,,.

The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent failed to provide the records within the ten-business-day timeframe mandated by Arizona law. During the proceedings, the Petitioner also alleged that the Respondent's witness committed perjury regarding her involvement in other civil litigation and the spelling of her name,.

### Main Legal Issues
1. **Statutory Compliance:** Whether the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires community associations to make records available within ten business days of a request.
2. **Defense of Error:** Whether the Respondent's unintentional "computer error" excused the failure to meet the statutory deadline,.
3. **Witness Credibility:** Whether the Respondent’s witness provided false testimony regarding her personal details,.

### Final Decision and Outcome
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal issued the following ruling:

* **Violation Found:** The ALJ concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Although the Respondent eventually provided the policy, it failed to do so within the required ten business days,.
* **Sanctions and Penalties:** The ALJ determined that civil penalties were not warranted. The judge accepted the testimony that the Respondent attempted to comply in good faith on November 4, 2011, and that the delay was caused by technical difficulties.
* **Perjury Allegations Dismissed:** The ALJ found the witness's explanations regarding her name and litigation history to be reasonable and truthful, determining that these issues did not impact her credibility,.

### Order
Because the Petitioner prevailed in proving the statutory violation, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee of **$550.00** within 30 days. No further action was required regarding the records, as the policy had already been provided. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision by the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on June 14, 2012.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

William M. Brown (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

Joshua M. Bolen (Attorney)
Carpenter Hazelwood, Delgado, & Bolen, PLC
Representing Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Cici Rausch (Custodian of Records)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Also identified as Celia Anne Rausch; testified at hearing
Tom Forbes (General Manager)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Raquel Shull (Controller)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted copy