The ALJ ruled that while the HOA could remove the obsolete fountain, the CC&Rs required restoration of the common element. Leaving the base filled with rubble violated the requirement to restore property to an attractive condition. The HOA was ordered to install a replacement fountain.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to restore common element (fountain)
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly removed a large fountain at the entry way and failed to restore the property, leaving a base filled with debris. The HOA claimed obsolescence and lack of funds.
Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with paragraph 10.2 of the CC&Rs by the installation of a common element that is in substance a 'fountain,' to be 'substantially' in the location of the former fountain, and that is 'attractive, sound and [of] desirable condition' within 180 days.
Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Decision Documents
11F-H1112002-BFS Decision – 283494.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:26 (110.8 KB)
11F-H1112002-BFS Decision – 286426.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:27 (59.7 KB)
Briefing Doc – 11F-H1112002-BFS
Select all sources
283494.pdf
286426.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
11F-H1112002-BFS
2 sources
These legal documents detail a dispute between James Vincent Gruner and the Hunters Pointe Condominium Association regarding the unauthorized removal of a community fountain. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the association violated its governing Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to maintain the property according to its original plans. While the association argued that financial hardship and modern safety codes justified the removal, the court found the resulting debris to be an unattractive safety hazard. Consequently, the association was ordered to restore the fountain within 180 days and reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees. A subsequent certification confirmed this ruling as the final administrative decision after the state agency failed to modify or reject the judge’s initial findings.
How did the association justify removing the community fountain?
What was the final ruling regarding the fountain’s restoration?
How do CC&Rs govern the maintenance of common elements?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 7:06 AM
Slide Deck
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Data Table
Study Guide – 11F-H1112002-BFS
Select all sources
283494.pdf
286426.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
11F-H1112002-BFS
2 sources
These legal documents detail a dispute between James Vincent Gruner and the Hunters Pointe Condominium Association regarding the unauthorized removal of a community fountain. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the association violated its governing Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to maintain the property according to its original plans. While the association argued that financial hardship and modern safety codes justified the removal, the court found the resulting debris to be an unattractive safety hazard. Consequently, the association was ordered to restore the fountain within 180 days and reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees. A subsequent certification confirmed this ruling as the final administrative decision after the state agency failed to modify or reject the judge’s initial findings.
How did the association justify removing the community fountain?
What was the final ruling regarding the fountain’s restoration?
How do CC&Rs govern the maintenance of common elements?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 7:06 AM
Slide Deck
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Data Table
Blog Post – 11F-H1112002-BFS
Select all sources
283494.pdf
286426.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
11F-H1112002-BFS
2 sources
These legal documents detail a dispute between James Vincent Gruner and the Hunters Pointe Condominium Association regarding the unauthorized removal of a community fountain. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the association violated its governing Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to maintain the property according to its original plans. While the association argued that financial hardship and modern safety codes justified the removal, the court found the resulting debris to be an unattractive safety hazard. Consequently, the association was ordered to restore the fountain within 180 days and reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees. A subsequent certification confirmed this ruling as the final administrative decision after the state agency failed to modify or reject the judge’s initial findings.
How did the association justify removing the community fountain?
What was the final ruling regarding the fountain’s restoration?
How do CC&Rs govern the maintenance of common elements?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 7:06 AM
Slide Deck
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
James Vincent Gruner(Petitioner) Hunters Pointe Condominium Association (Resident) Resided in association for 15 years
Ronald W. Stephenson(Witness) Hunters Pointe Condominium Association (Resident, Unit 2016) Testified on behalf of Petitioner
Respondent Side
Jeffrey B. Corben(Attorney) Maxwell & Morgan P.C. Represented Hunters Pointe Condominium Association
Cathy Gillespie(Board Member) Hunters Pointe Condominium Association Board Secretary; testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Brian Brendan Tully(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma(Agency Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Director receiving transmittal
Cliff J. Vanell(Director) Office of Administrative Hearings Certified the ALJ decision
Beth Soliere(Agency Staff) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Recipient of decision copy
The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's First Amended Motion to Dismiss. The Petitioner lacked standing to file the petition because she did not own the lot within the subdivision at the time of filing. Additionally, the Tribunal lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute was contractual in nature regarding CC&R amendments.
Why this result: Lack of standing; Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Key Issues & Findings
Motion to Dismiss – Standing and Jurisdiction
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated the CC&Rs/contract by amending the minimum home size from 2,500 to 3,500 square feet. Respondent moved to dismiss.
Orders: The matter was dismissed because the Petitioner lacked standing (did not own the lot at the time of filing) and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over contractual disputes.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)
A.R.S. § 41-2198 et seq.
A.R.S. § 41-2198(3)
Decision Documents
11F-H1112001-BFS Decision – 277667.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:22 (57.4 KB)
11F-H1112001-BFS Decision – 280461.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:22 (60.0 KB)
**Case Title:** *Kathy Wozniak vs. The North Slopes Property Owners Association*
**Case Number:** 11F-H1112001-BFS
**Hearing Overview and Proceedings**
On October 19, 2011, the Office of Administrative Hearings held an oral argument to address the Respondent’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss,. The dispute centered on the Petitioner's grievances regarding the Association's enforcement of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner, Kathy Wozniak, alleged issues regarding the size of homes permitted within the subdivision. Specifically, she noted that the CC&Rs in place when she purchased Lot 20 allowed for a minimum home size of 2,500 square feet, but the Association subsequently amended the CC&Rs to increase the minimum requirement to 3,500 square feet,.
However, during the proceedings, the Petitioner failed to identify any specific statute or provision within the community documents that the Respondent had violated,. Instead, she argued that the Respondent had failed to adhere to a contract and did not act in good faith.
**Key Legal Issues**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) identified two primary legal deficiencies in the Petitioner's case:
1. **Standing:** It was undisputed that the Petitioner did not own Lot 20 at the time she filed the petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. Consequently, she did not qualify as an "owner" under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B) and lacked the legal standing to be a party to the administrative hearing.
2. **Subject Matter Jurisdiction:** The Tribunal found that the Petitioner's claims were contractual in nature rather than based on a violation of Title 33, Chapter 16, or planned community documents. The ALJ ruled that adjudicating contractual disputes and allegations of bad faith falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 41-2198(3).
**Outcome and Final Decision**
Based on the lack of standing and the lack of jurisdiction over the contractual issues raised, the ALJ granted the Respondent’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss on October 28, 2011,.
Following the decision, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety had until December 2, 2011, to accept, reject, or modify the ruling. Because no action was taken by the Department, the ALJ's decision was certified as the final administrative decision on December 6, 2011,. The Petitioner retained the right to request a rehearing or appeal to the Superior Court,.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Kathy Wozniak(Petitioner)
Respondent Side
Karen L. Karr(Attorney) Bisgaard & Smith LLP; Lewis Brisbois Attorney for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Lewis D. Kowal(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Cliff J. Vanell(Director) Office of Administrative Hearings Signed Certification of Decision
Gene Palma(Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Beth Soliere(Agency Staff) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Listed in transmission details
The ALJ initially dismissed the petition, finding the HOA properly exercised its discretion in denying the awning request. However, a subsequent order issued the same day set aside the ALJ decision and remanded the matter to the Department, citing a Superior Court Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
Why this result: In the dismissed decision, the ALJ ruled the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA abused its discretion or violated the architectural guidelines.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of request to install awnings
Petitioner sought approval to install five fixed vertical rib canvass awnings. The Architectural Committee denied the request stating they were not in keeping with the architectural character. Petitioner argued the guidelines did not prohibit awnings.
Orders: Petition dismissed. The ALJ found the HOA properly exercised discretion. Note: This decision was set aside and remanded by a separate order on the same date due to a Superior Court order.
Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Decision Documents
08F-H089010-BFS Decision – 206974.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:05 (85.9 KB)
08F-H089010-BFS Decision – 207095.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:05 (53.5 KB)
Briefing Doc – 08F-H089010-BFS
Briefing Document: Morris v. Verde Santa Fe Community Association (No. 08F-H089010-BFS)
Executive Summary
This briefing document details a legal dispute between Jean E. Morris (“Petitioner”) and the Verde Santa Fe Community Association (“Respondent”) regarding the denial of an architectural request to install window awnings. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Association, finding that the Architectural Committee had properly exercised its discretionary authority to maintain the aesthetic character of the community. However, on the same day the decision was issued, a superior court order for declaratory and injunctive relief necessitated that the ALJ decision be set aside. The matter was subsequently remanded to the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety for further action.
Case Overview and Parties
Entity
Representation
Jean E. Morris
Petitioner / Homeowner
Self-represented
Verde Santa Fe Community Association
Respondent / HOA
Bob J. McCullough, Esq.
Office of Administrative Hearings
Adjudicating Body
Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
The dispute centers on real property located at 6245 Wide Horizon Court, Cornville, Arizona, within the Verde Santa Fe planned community in Yavapai County.
Factual Background of the Dispute
The conflict arose from the Petitioner’s desire to install exterior window treatments on her residence. The following timeline and specifications outline the development of the dispute:
• Initial Request (June 11, 2008): The Petitioner submitted an Architectural Design Request to the Association’s management company for five fixed vertical rib canvas awnings.
◦ Specifications: One 64” long Bay window, two 30” long Bay windows, and two 68” long windows.
◦ Design Details: 24” drop with a 30” horizontal projection; Sunbrella Color 4627-0000 (salmon); square edging on the valances.
• Initial Denial (June 26, 2008): The Architectural Committee rejected the application, stating the awnings were “not in keeping with the architectural character of Verde Santa Fe.”
• Appeal and Reconsideration (July – August 2008): The Petitioner requested reconsideration on July 27, 2008. On August 20, 2008, the Board of Directors informed her that the Committee had reconsidered and again rejected the request.
• Petition Filing: The Petitioner filed a single-count violation alleging that the Association’s position—that no awnings would be approved—violated community guidelines and state statutes (A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16).
Governing Documents and Regulatory Framework
The rights and obligations of both parties are governed by the following documents and statutes:
1. Community Documents
• CC&Rs (Section 5.12.2): Grants the Architectural Committee the authority to promulgate design guidelines and standards (including color palettes). It stipulates that Committee decisions are final.
• Architectural Guidelines (Section 4.13): Explicitly states, “No awnings or exterior shutters or grills will be permitted without Committee approval.”
2. State Statutes
• A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B): Designates the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety as the agency for filing homeowner/association dispute petitions.
• A.R.S. § 41-2198(B): States that an ALJ order is a final administrative decision enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.
Initial Administrative Findings
In the initial decision dated February 2, 2009, the ALJ dismissed the petition based on the following findings:
• Proper Exercise of Discretion: The ALJ found credible evidence that the Architectural Committee acted within its authority. The rejection was based on “aesthetic suitability,” which is a valid exercise of discretion under the CC&Rs.
• Burden of Proof: Under A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner held the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to establish that the Association violated Section 4.13 of the guidelines.
• Survey Evidence: The Petitioner submitted a survey of her neighbors supporting her request. The ALJ ruled this “not persuasive,” noting that if homeowners are dissatisfied with governing documents, they must follow established procedures to change them rather than bypassing committee approval via surveys.
Procedural Reversal and Remand
The initial decision to dismiss the petition was immediately complicated by concurrent legal proceedings in a higher court:
1. Superior Court Intervention: On January 29, 2009, Superior Court Judge Paul J. McMurdie issued an Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
2. Order to Set Aside: This Superior Court order was filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings on February 2, 2009—the same day the ALJ’s initial decision was issued.
3. Final Action: Consequently, ALJ Brian Brendan Tully issued a secondary order setting aside the initial decision and remanding the matter to the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
As a result of this remand, the initial dismissal is no longer in effect, and the dispute remains subject to further administrative or legal resolution in accordance with the Superior Court’s directives.
Study Guide – 08F-H089010-BFS
Study Guide: Morris v. Verde Santa Fe Community Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative proceedings between Jean E. Morris and the Verde Santa Fe Community Association. It covers the factual background of the architectural dispute, the initial legal findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and the subsequent setting aside of that decision due to superior court intervention.
Short-Answer Quiz
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this dispute and what is their relationship? The Petitioner is Jean E. Morris, a homeowner and member of the Verde Santa Fe Community Association. The Respondent is the Verde Santa Fe Community Association, a homeowners association located in Yavapai County, Arizona, to which the Petitioner is subject via the association’s governing documents.
2. What specific architectural modification did the Petitioner seek to install at her residence? The Petitioner requested approval for five fixed vertical rib canvas awnings in a salmon color (Sunbrella Color 4627-0000). These were intended to cover one 64-inch long bay window, two 30-inch long bay windows, and two 68-inch long windows at her property in Cornville, Arizona.
3. What was the primary reason provided by the Architectural Committee for denying the Petitioner’s request? The Architectural Committee denied the application on June 26, 2008, stating that the requested awnings were not in keeping with the architectural character of Verde Santa Fe. This decision was upheld upon reconsideration by the Board of Directors in August 2008.
4. According to Section 4.13 of the Verde Santa Fe Architectural Guidelines, under what conditions are awnings permitted? Section 4.13 of the guidelines states that no awnings, exterior shutters, or grills are permitted without committee approval. This effectively prohibits such installations unless the Architectural Committee specifically grants an exception or approval.
5. What authority does the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety hold regarding homeowner disputes? Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), this department is the designated state agency where petitions are filed when a homeowner or a planned community/condominium association requests a hearing regarding a dispute. It also has the authority to require filing fees and forward petitions to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
6. What is the burden of proof in these administrative proceedings, and who carries it? According to A.A.C. R2-19-119, the Petitioner carries the burden of proof. The legal standard required to prevail in the matter is the “preponderance of the evidence.”
7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge initially find that the Architectural Committee had not abused its discretion? The ALJ determined that the committee properly exercised its discretion because it based its decision on aesthetic suitability. The judge found that the committee complied with the governing documents, which grant them the final authority on architectural matters submitted to them.
8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s initial ruling regarding the $550.00 filing fee? In the initial decision dated February 2, 2009, the ALJ ruled that the Petitioner was not the prevailing party. Consequently, under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), she was not entitled to the repayment of her $550.00 filing fee from the Respondent.
9. What happened to the Administrative Law Judge’s initial decision on the same day it was issued? On February 2, 2009, the ALJ issued an order setting aside his own decision. This action was taken because a copy of a Superior Court Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, issued by Judge Paul J. McMurdie on January 29, 2009, was filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings.
10. What was the final procedural outcome of the case as described in the provided documents? The matter was remanded to the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The original decision to dismiss the petition was vacated in light of the superior court’s intervention, effectively restarting or redirecting the administrative process.
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Parties: Jean E. Morris (Petitioner/Homeowner) and Verde Santa Fe Community Association (Respondent/HOA).
2. Request: Five fixed vertical rib salmon-colored canvas awnings for various bay and standard windows.
3. Reason for Denial: The awnings were deemed not in keeping with the architectural character of the community.
4. Awning Conditions: They are prohibited unless the Architectural Committee provides explicit approval.
5. Department Authority: It is the state agency for filing dispute petitions and forwarding them for formal hearings.
6. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner holds the burden; the standard is “preponderance of the evidence.”
7. Abuse of Discretion: The ALJ found the committee acted within its rights to make aesthetic determinations as allowed by the CC&Rs.
8. Filing Fee: The ALJ initially denied the request for fee repayment because the Petitioner did not prevail.
9. Immediate Change: The decision was set aside due to a conflicting Superior Court Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
10. Final Outcome: The case was remanded to the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
1. The Scope of HOA Authority: Discuss the extent of an Architectural Committee’s power to deny homeowner requests based on “aesthetic suitability.” Should a committee have the final word on aesthetics if the governing documents do not explicitly prohibit a specific item like awnings?
2. Administrative vs. Judicial Overlap: Analyze the procedural conflict that occurred on February 2, 2009. What does the setting aside of the ALJ’s decision suggest about the hierarchy between the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Superior Court?
3. The Burden of Proof in Homeowner Disputes: Evaluate the difficulty a homeowner faces in proving an “abuse of discretion” by an HOA board. What type of evidence, beyond neighbor surveys, might a petitioner need to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard?
4. Interpretation of Governing Documents: Section 4.13 of the Architectural Guidelines states awnings are permitted with approval, but the Petitioner argued they were “not prohibited.” Explore the legal distinction between an item not being prohibited and an item requiring express permission.
5. The Role of State Agencies: Based on the documents, assess the role of the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety in regulating planned communities. How does this administrative path serve as an alternative to traditional litigation?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
• A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona used to determine legal authority and procedures in the case.
• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and makes decisions regarding disputes involving state agency actions or regulations.
• Architectural Committee: A body within a homeowners association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying changes to the exterior of properties based on community standards.
• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements): The governing documents that establish the rules and limitations for a planned community or condominium.
• Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: A legal remedy where a court issues a judgment defining the rights of the parties (declaratory) or requiring a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts (injunctive).
• Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition; in this case, Jean E. Morris.
• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning that the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.
• Remand: To send a case back to a lower court or a previous agency for further action or reconsideration.
• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Verde Santa Fe Community Association.
• Set Aside: To annul or vacate a prior legal decision or order, rendering it void.
Blog Post – 08F-H089010-BFS
The Great Salmon Awning Standoff: 5 Surprising Lessons from an HOA Legal Battle
Introduction
For the modern homeowner, the purchase of a residence is often viewed as the ultimate exercise of personal autonomy. Yet, for those living within a planned community, that autonomy is frequently illusory, bound by the rigid and often subjective oversight of a Homeowners Association (HOA). The dream of a simple aesthetic upgrade can rapidly devolve into a protracted administrative battle, characterized by jurisdictional complexity and significant financial risk.
This tension is perfectly encapsulated in the case of Jean E. Morris vs. Verde Santa Fe Community Association. What began as a request to install five salmon-colored canvas awnings transformed into a high-stakes legal standoff that reached the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The resulting decision offers a masterclass in the power dynamics of community governance and the contractual obligations that define life under an HOA.
1. The “Approval” Trap: When Silence Is a De Facto Prohibition
A common misconception among homeowners is the belief that if an architectural feature is not explicitly forbidden in the community’s governing documents, it is permitted. The Morris case serves as a stark rebuttal to this logic. The conflict centered on Section 4.13 of the Verde Santa Fe Architectural Guidelines, which shifts the burden of proof entirely onto the petitioner.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) highlighted a critical legal nuance in Finding of Fact 16: when a guideline requires approval for an item, that item is effectively prohibited until the board says otherwise. This grants the Architectural Committee a powerful gatekeeping role, where the “default” state of any modification is illegality.
By interpreting this language, the ALJ concluded that “awnings are prohibited in the homeowners association unless the Architectural Committee approves [them].” For homeowners, the lesson is clear: in the absence of an explicit “yes,” the law assumes a “no.”
2. Aesthetics as Law: Physical Specs and the Power of “Finality”
The Architectural Committee’s denial of Morris’s request was not based on a lack of detail. Morris submitted a comprehensive plan for five fixed vertical rib canvas awnings (Sunbrella Color 4627-0000) designed to cover one 64” bay window, two 30” bay windows, and two 68” windows. Despite these specific dimensions and the high-quality materials, the committee dismissed the project as “not in keeping with the architectural character of Verde Santa Fe.”
This highlights the immense discretionary power held by HOA boards. This power is protected by “Finality Clauses” within the CC&Rs, which limit the scope of judicial review. As long as the board follows its own procedures, a judge is unlikely to second-guess their aesthetic “judgment call.”
The ALJ found that the committee “properly exercised its discretion” by determining the awnings were not “aesthetically suitable.” In HOA law, “suitability” is a legal standard that can override even the most well-documented architectural plan.
3. Why Neighborly Support Fails as a Legal Defense
When faced with a board rejection, many homeowners attempt to use democratic pressure to reverse the decision. After her initial denial on June 26, 2008, Morris requested a reconsideration. The Board of Directors deliberated and, by letter dated August 20, 2008, formally rejected the request a second time (Finding of Fact 15).
In response, Morris presented a survey of her neighbors to prove the community supported her salmon-colored awnings. However, the ALJ dismissed this evidence entirely in Finding of Fact 19. The takeaway is a cold reality of property law: an HOA is a contractual regime, not a pure democracy. The CC&Rs are a binding contract between the owner and the association. “Peer support” or neighborly consensus cannot override the contractual authority granted to the Architectural Committee. To change the outcome, one must change the documents themselves through formal amendment, not merely poll the neighbors.
4. The High Cost of Losing: The Administrative “Pay-to-Play” System
Litigating an HOA dispute through the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety is often perceived as a more accessible alternative to Superior Court, but it remains a significant financial gamble. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), the Department acts as the administrative clearinghouse for these petitions, requiring a $550.00 nonrefundable filing fee.
The sting of Morris’s defeat was compounded by the “prevailing party” rule. Because the ALJ initially dismissed her petition, she was not entitled to the recovery of her costs under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A). This creates a “pay-to-play” environment where a homeowner must be prepared to lose their filing fee—and potentially face the association’s legal costs—if their interpretation of the guidelines does not align with the court’s. Administrative finality comes at a price that many homeowners are unprepared to pay.
5. The “Same-Day” Plot Twist: A Lesson in Parallel Litigation
The most dramatic lesson of the Morris case is the inherent volatility of the legal landscape. On February 2, 2009, the ALJ issued a formal decision dismissing Morris’s petition. However, in a stunning turn of events, that decision was “set aside” and remanded later that same day.
The cause was an intervention by the Yavapai County Superior Court. Judge Paul J. McMurdie had issued an “Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” on January 29, 2009, which reached the administrative office just hours after the ALJ’s ruling. This illustrates the concept of Parallel Litigation: while an administrative judge is weighing guidelines and filing fees, a higher court may simultaneously be weighing constitutional rights or broader injunctive relief. For homeowners and boards alike, this serves as a warning that an administrative victory is never truly “final” until the jurisdictional hierarchy has been fully exhausted.
Conclusion: Beyond the Awnings
The “Salmon Awning Standoff” is more than a dispute over window treatments; it is a microcosm of the fundamental tension in modern property law. It pits the individual’s right to improve their home against the association’s mandate to preserve a collective aesthetic.
As the Morris case demonstrates, the broad “discretionary power” granted to Architectural Committees creates a high degree of unpredictability for homeowners. Does this discretion provide the stability necessary to maintain property values, or does it subject a homeowner’s significant financial investment to the subjective whims of a shifting board? For those living under an HOA, the answer often depends on how well they understand the contractual “gatekeeping” they agreed to at the time of purchase.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jean E. Morris(Petitioner) Verde Santa Fe Community Association (Member) Owner of real property at 6245 Wide Horizon Court, Cornville, Arizona
Respondent Side
Bob J. McCullough(attorney) Verde Santa Fe Community Association
Neutral Parties
Brian Brendan Tully(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Issued Decision; subsequently issued Order Setting Aside Decision
Paul J. McMurdie(Judge) Superior Court Issued Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief dated January 29, 2009
Robert Barger(Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Listed on mailing list
Debra Blake(Agency Staff) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Listed on mailing list
The ALJ granted the Respondent's request to dismiss the petition, finding that the Petitioner's single issue did not give rise to a cause of action because the governing documents did not prohibit the Association from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to identify any provision in the By-Laws that prohibited the Respondent from conducting a second vote after the first vote failed.
Key Issues & Findings
Validity of Second Vote to Amend By-Laws
Petitioner argued that because a quorum was present at the first vote (which failed), the Respondent was precluded from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws in December 2008.
Orders: The Petition was dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article IV, Paragraph 5
Article X, Paragraph 3
Decision Documents
08F-H089015-BFS Decision – 206857.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:13 (63.8 KB)
Briefing Doc – 08F-H089015-BFS
Briefing on Administrative Decision: Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates
Executive Summary
This briefing examines the administrative decision in the case of Carl A. Sawicki vs. Clearwater Farms Estates (No. 08F-H089015-BFS), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on January 29, 2009. The dispute centered on whether a homeowners’ association is prohibited from conducting a subsequent vote to amend its By-Laws shortly after an initial vote on the same amendment failed to pass despite reaching a quorum.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Respondent, Clearwater Farms Estates, dismissing the petition. The core finding was that the association’s By-Laws did not contain any provisions restricting or prohibiting multiple votes on amendments. Furthermore, the ruling clarified the limited jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings, noting it only has the power to address specific violations of planned community documents or state statutes as granted by law.
Case Overview and Parties
Entity
Carl A. Sawicki
Petitioner
Clearwater Farms Estates
Respondent
Lewis D. Kowal
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
Adjudicating Agency
Decision Date
January 29, 2009
Factual Timeline and Dispute
The controversy arose from two distinct attempts by the Clearwater Farms Estates Board of Directors to amend the association’s By-Laws to align with changes in Arizona State law regarding planned communities.
1. The First Vote (November 6, 2008)
• Status: A quorum of members was present, satisfying Article IV, Paragraph 5 of the By-Laws.
• Outcome: The amendment failed to pass.
• Reason for Failure: The vote did not reach the 2/3 majority of the membership required by Article X, Paragraph 3 of the By-Laws.
2. The Second Vote (December 4, 2008)
• Status: A quorum of members was present.
• Outcome: The amendment passed.
• Reason for Success: A 2/3 majority of the membership voted in favor of the amendment.
The Petitioner’s Argument
Petitioner Carl A. Sawicki did not dispute the mathematical results of the second vote. Instead, he argued that because a quorum was present during the first (failed) vote, the Respondent was legally or procedurally precluded from holding a second vote on the same amendment so soon after the first.
The Respondent’s Argument
Respondent Clearwater Farms Estates contended that the act of holding a second vote did not constitute a violation of the association’s By-Laws.
Legal Analysis and Jurisdictional Framework
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision rested on two primary pillars: the statutory limits of the agency’s authority and the specific language of the association’s governing documents.
Statutory Authority and Jurisdiction
The decision emphasized that the Office of Administrative Hearings is a creature of statute and lacks broad judicial powers.
• Limited Powers: The OAH does not possess “common law or inherent powers.” Its duties are strictly limited to those granted by statute (Ayala v. Hill, 136 Ariz. 88).
• Scope of Review: Under A.R.S. §§ 41-2198 and 41-2198.01(B), the agency’s jurisdiction is limited to determining if an association violated:
◦ Articles of Incorporation
◦ Bylaws
◦ Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
◦ A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16
Determination of the Issue
Upon review of the By-Laws and arguments, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to state a valid cause of action.
• Absence of Prohibition: The ALJ found that none of the By-Law provisions relied upon by the Petitioner—nor any other provisions in the documents—prohibit or restrict the membership from holding a second vote to amend the By-Laws.
• Lack of Violation: Because there was no rule against a second vote, the association could not have committed a violation.
Final Order
The Office of Administrative Hearings issued the following mandates:
1. Dismissal: The Respondent’s Request to Dismiss Petition was granted.
2. Removal from Docket: The matter was vacated from the OAH docket.
3. Finality: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), the order serves as the final administrative decision. It is not subject to requests for rehearing.
Key Legal Citations
Study Guide – 08F-H089015-BFS
Study Guide: Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates Administrative Decision
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative case Carl A. Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates (No. 08F-H089015-BFS). It is designed to assist in understanding the legal arguments, the jurisdiction of administrative bodies in Arizona, and the specific outcomes regarding the governance of planned communities.
Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.
1. Who are the parties involved in this case and what is their legal relationship?
2. What occurred during the First Vote on November 6, 2008, regarding the Respondent’s By-Laws?
3. Why did the Clearwater Farms Estates Board of Directors seek to amend the By-Laws?
4. How did the outcome of the Second Vote on December 4, 2008, differ from the First Vote?
5. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the validity of the Second Vote?
6. According to the decision, how are the powers and duties of administrative agencies limited?
7. What specific documents or statutes does the Office of Administrative Hearings have the jurisdiction to review in cases involving planned communities?
8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim that a second vote was prohibited?
9. What was the final order issued by Judge Lewis D. Kowal on January 29, 2009?
10. What is the status of this decision regarding further administrative appeals or rehearings?
——————————————————————————–
Part 2: Answer Key
1. Who are the parties involved in this case and what is their legal relationship? The Petitioner is Carl A. Sawicki, and the Respondent is Clearwater Farms Estates. The case was heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings to determine if the Respondent violated its planned community documents or state statutes.
2. What occurred during the First Vote on November 6, 2008, regarding the Respondent’s By-Laws? A quorum was present for the First Vote as required by Article IV, Paragraph 5 of the By-Laws. However, the amendment failed to pass because it did not receive the 2/3 majority vote of the membership required by Article X, Paragraph 3.
3. Why did the Clearwater Farms Estates Board of Directors seek to amend the By-Laws? The Board of Directors initiated the amendment process to ensure the community’s internal rules were updated. Specifically, the amendment was sought to conform the By-Laws to changes in Arizona State law regarding planned communities.
4. How did the outcome of the Second Vote on December 4, 2008, differ from the First Vote? Unlike the first attempt, the Second Vote held on December 4, 2008, was successful. While both votes met the quorum requirement, the Second Vote achieved the necessary 2/3 majority of the membership in favor of the amendment.
5. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the validity of the Second Vote? The Petitioner argued that because a quorum was present during the failed First Vote, the Respondent was precluded from holding another vote on the same amendment so soon. He contended that the failure of the first vote effectively blocked a subsequent vote in December 2008.
6. According to the decision, how are the powers and duties of administrative agencies limited? Administrative agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings, are limited strictly to the powers granted to them by statute. They do not possess any common law or inherent powers beyond what is explicitly defined in legislation.
7. What specific documents or statutes does the Office of Administrative Hearings have the jurisdiction to review in cases involving planned communities? The OAH has jurisdiction to determine violations of a community’s Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Additionally, it can review violations of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16.
8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim that a second vote was prohibited? The Judge concluded that the Petitioner’s issue did not give rise to a cause of action because no By-Law provisions restricted or prohibited a second vote. Since no specific provision was violated, there was no legal basis for the Petitioner’s complaint.
9. What was the final order issued by Judge Lewis D. Kowal on January 29, 2009? The Judge ordered that the Respondent’s Request to Dismiss Petition be granted. Furthermore, the matter was vacated from the docket of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
10. What is the status of this decision regarding further administrative appeals or rehearings? Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), this order constitutes the final administrative decision. As a final decision, it is explicitly not subject to any requests for rehearing.
——————————————————————————–
Part 3: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the provided source text to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.
1. The Role of Quorum and Majority Thresholds: Analyze the importance of Article IV, Paragraph 5 and Article X, Paragraph 3 in the context of the Clearwater Farms Estates governance. How did these specific rules dictate the outcomes of both the November and December votes?
2. Administrative Jurisdiction and Statutory Limitations: Discuss the limitations of the Office of Administrative Hearings as outlined in the decision. Why is it significant that administrative agencies lack “common law or inherent powers” when adjudicating disputes between homeowners and associations?
3. Interpreting Planned Community Documents: Examine the Judge’s reasoning for dismissing the petition. How does the absence of a specific prohibitory provision in the By-Laws influence the legality of the Board’s actions?
4. Legislative Conformity: Explore the Board of Directors’ motivation for the amendment—conforming to State law. Why might a planned community prioritize aligning its By-Laws with state statutes, and how does this process intersect with membership voting rights?
5. The Finality of Administrative Decisions: Reflect on the procedural conclusion of this case. What are the implications for a petitioner when a decision is rendered “final” and “not subject to a request for rehearing” under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A)?
——————————————————————————–
Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding officer who conducts hearings and issues decisions for administrative agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. Title 33
The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that contains laws pertaining to property, including planned communities (Chapters 9 and 16).
By-Laws
The internal rules and regulations established by an organization, such as a planned community, to govern its administration and the conduct of its members.
Cause of Action
A set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party.
Common Law
Law derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes; the document notes administrative agencies do not have these powers.
Jurisdiction
The official power of a legal body to make legal decisions and judgments over a specific subject matter or geographic area.
Petitioner
The party who presents a petition to a court or administrative body (in this case, Carl A. Sawicki).
Planned Community Documents
The collective set of governing documents for a development, including Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Quorum
The minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is taken (in this case, Clearwater Farms Estates).
Vacate
To cancel or render void a legal proceeding or a scheduled matter on a court’s docket.
Blog Post – 08F-H089015-BFS
Here is a concise summary of the administrative hearing decision in Carl A. Sawicki v. Clearwater Farms Estates (Case No. 08F-H089015-BFS).
Case Overview
This matter was heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Petitioner Carl A. Sawicki and Respondent Clearwater Farms Estates1. On January 20, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal held a pre-hearing conference where both parties presented arguments regarding the potential dismissal of the Petition12.
Key Facts and Arguments
The dispute arose from the Respondent’s attempts to amend its By-Laws to conform with changes in State law3.
• The First Vote: On November 6, 2008, the Respondent held an initial vote to amend the By-Laws2. While a quorum was present, the amendment failed because it did not receive the required 2/3 vote of the membership23.
• The Second Vote: On December 4, 2008, the Respondent held a second vote3. This time, a quorum was present, and the amendment passed with the necessary 2/3 majority3.
Petitioner’s Argument: The Petitioner did not dispute the results of the second vote or the presence of a quorum3. Instead, he argued that because the first vote had a quorum but failed, the Respondent was precluded from holding another vote on the amendment as soon as it did in December 20084.
Respondent’s Argument: The Respondent contended that the actions complained of did not constitute a violation of the community’s By-Laws4.
Legal Analysis and Decision
The Administrative Law Judge noted that the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings is limited to determining if an Association has violated its planned community documents (such as By-Laws or Articles of Incorporation) or specific statutes under A.R.S. Title 335.
Upon reviewing the documents and arguments, the Judge concluded the following:
• No Violation Found: None of the By-Law provisions relied upon by the Petitioner prohibited or restricted the membership from conducting a second vote to amend the By-Laws6.
• No Cause of Action: Because the Respondent did not violate any provision of the By-Laws, the Petitioner’s complaint lacked a valid basis67.
The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent’s Request to Dismiss the Petition and vacated the matter from the docket7. This Order constituted a final administrative decision not subject to a request for rehearing7.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Carl A. Sawicki(Petitioner) ,
Respondent Side
Beth Mulcahy(Attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Esq. listed in mailing distribution
Neutral Parties
Lewis D. Kowal(Administrative Law Judge) Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger(Director) Department of Fire Building and Life Safety Mailing list recipient
Debra Blake(Agency Staff) Department of Fire Building and Life Safety Mailing list recipient
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition with prejudice and vacated the hearing following a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss filed by the parties.
Why this result: The parties filed a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.
Key Issues & Findings
Dismissal
The matter was dismissed based on a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge granted the Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Complaint with Prejudice and vacated the hearing.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: dismissed
Cited:
2
Decision Documents
08F-H089012-BFS Decision – 206537.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:09:15 (57.0 KB)
Briefing Doc – 08F-H089012-BFS
Administrative Briefing: Maribeth Price vs. Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association (Case No. 08F-H089012-BFS)
Executive Summary
This briefing outlines the final administrative resolution of the matter Maribeth Price vs. Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association. Following a stipulated motion filed by both parties, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings has formally dismissed the petitioner’s complaint with prejudice and vacated all scheduled proceedings. This order, issued on January 26, 2009, serves as the final administrative decision regarding the dispute originally filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Case Overview
The matter involved a legal dispute between an individual petitioner and a nonprofit homeowner association. The proceedings were conducted under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Petitioner: Maribeth Price
• Respondent: Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association (an Arizona nonprofit corporation)
• Case Number: 08F-H089012-BFS
• Presiding Official: Lewis D. Kowal, Administrative Law Judge
Procedural Timeline and Final Action
The resolution of this case was reached through mutual agreement between the involved parties, leading to the following sequence of events:
• January 23, 2009: The Office of Administrative Hearings received a “Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Complaint with Prejudice and Request to Vacate Hearing.”
• January 26, 2009: The scheduled hearing was officially vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings docket.
• Final Disposition: In accordance with the joint motion, the petition—initially filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety—was dismissed with prejudice.
Legal Authority and Status
The dismissal of this case is governed by specific Arizona Revised Statutes. Under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), the order issued by Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal constitutes the final administrative decision for this matter. By dismissing the case “with prejudice,” the order signifies a permanent end to the specific claims raised in the petition.
Key Stakeholders and Legal Representation
The following table identifies the legal representatives and departmental contacts involved in the distribution of the final order:
Entity/Role
Name and Affiliation
Location
Administrative Law Judge
Lewis D. Kowal
Phoenix, AZ
Departmental Oversight
Robert Barger, Director (Attn: Debra Blake)
Dept. of Fire Building and Life Safety, Phoenix, AZ
Legal Counsel
Troy B. Stratman, Esq. (Mack Drucker & Watson, P.L.L.C.)
Phoenix, AZ
Legal Counsel
Mark K. Saho, Esq. (Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Wood, PLC)
Tempe, AZ
Conclusion
The matter of Price vs. Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association has been concluded without a full evidentiary hearing. The use of a stipulated motion indicates that the parties reached a settlement or mutual agreement to terminate the litigation, resulting in a final administrative order that vacates all future hearings and removes the case from the active docket.
Study Guide – 08F-H089012-BFS
Study Guide: Price v. Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association Legal Proceedings
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal documents pertaining to the case of Maribeth Price versus Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association. It is designed to facilitate a deep understanding of the procedural actions, parties involved, and the final resolution of the matter within the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
——————————————————————————–
Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the information provided in the source context.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative case?
2. What specific office was responsible for overseeing this matter, and where is it located?
3. What was the nature of the motion received by the Office of Administrative Hearings on January 23, 2009?
4. What was the specific outcome regarding the hearing originally scheduled for January 26, 2009?
5. Who served as the presiding official over this matter, and what is their formal title?
6. According to the order, what is the legal status of the decision rendered on January 26, 2009?
7. Under which Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) is the finality of this administrative decision established?
8. With which state department was the original petition filed before reaching the Office of Administrative Hearings?
9. Which individuals or entities were designated to receive mailed copies of the final order?
10. What is the official case identification number for this proceeding?
——————————————————————————–
Part 2: Quiz Answer Key
1. The Parties: The Petitioner is Maribeth Price, and the Respondent is the Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association. The Respondent is identified as an Arizona nonprofit corporation.
2. The Venue: The matter was handled by the Office of Administrative Hearings. This office is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
3. The Motion: On January 23, 2009, the office received a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Complaint with Prejudice. This filing also included a Request to Vacate the Hearing that had been scheduled for January 26, 2009.
4. The Hearing Status: In accordance with the stipulated motion, the hearing was officially vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings docket. This means the scheduled legal proceeding was cancelled and will not take place.
5. Presiding Official: The order was issued and signed by Lewis D. Kowal. His official title is Administrative Law Judge.
6. Finality of Decision: The document explicitly states that the order serves as the final administrative decision for the case. By dismissing the petition and vacating the hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings concluded the matter.
7. Statutory Authority: The finality of the administrative decision is supported by A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). This statute is cited to provide the legal basis for the order’s conclusion.
8. Original Filing Department: The original petition was filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The matter was subsequently transitioned to the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication.
9. Recipients of the Order: Copies were transmitted to Robert Barger (Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety), Troy B. Stratman of Mack Drucker & Watson, P.L.L.C., and Mark K. Saho of Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Wood, PLC.
10. Case Number: The proceeding is cataloged under case number 08F-H089012-BFS. This number is used to identify the specific dispute between Maribeth Price and the Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association.
——————————————————————————–
Part 3: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop detailed responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).
1. The Significance of Stipulation: Analyze the role of a “Stipulated Motion” in the context of this case. How does a mutual agreement between a Petitioner and a Respondent change the trajectory of an administrative hearing?
2. Administrative Hierarchy: Discuss the relationship between the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety and the Office of Administrative Hearings as suggested by the path of Maribeth Price’s petition.
3. Legal Finality: Explain the implications of an order being designated as a “final administrative decision” under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). Why is it necessary for an Administrative Law Judge to explicitly state this in the order?
4. Dismissal with Prejudice: Explore the legal weight of dismissing a complaint “with prejudice” within the framework of a dispute involving a Homeowners Association. What does this term imply about the Petitioner’s ability to refile the same claim?
5. Procedural Efficiency: Evaluate the process of “vacating” a hearing. How does the receipt of a motion just three days prior to a scheduled hearing (January 23 to January 26) reflect the administrative handling of legal dockets?
——————————————————————————–
Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding official (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) who hears and decides cases for a state or federal agency.
A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A)
The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited as the authority for the finality of the administrative decision.
Dismissal with Prejudice
A final judgment on the merits of a case which prevents the petitioner from bringing the same lawsuit or complaint again in the future.
Docket
The official schedule or list of cases to be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Final Administrative Decision
An order that concludes the agency’s involvement in a case, making it the definitive ruling on the matter at the administrative level.
Nonprofit Corporation
The legal status of the Respondent, Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association, indicating it is organized for purposes other than turning a profit for shareholders.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal proceeding or petition (in this case, Maribeth Price).
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or who is required to answer a legal claim (in this case, Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association).
Stipulated Motion
A formal request made to the court or judge in which both parties (Petitioner and Respondent) have agreed upon the terms.
Vacate
To cancel or annul a scheduled legal proceeding, such as a hearing.
Blog Post – 08F-H089012-BFS
Study Guide: Price v. Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association Legal Proceedings
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal documents pertaining to the case of Maribeth Price versus Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association. It is designed to facilitate a deep understanding of the procedural actions, parties involved, and the final resolution of the matter within the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
——————————————————————————–
Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the information provided in the source context.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative case?
2. What specific office was responsible for overseeing this matter, and where is it located?
3. What was the nature of the motion received by the Office of Administrative Hearings on January 23, 2009?
4. What was the specific outcome regarding the hearing originally scheduled for January 26, 2009?
5. Who served as the presiding official over this matter, and what is their formal title?
6. According to the order, what is the legal status of the decision rendered on January 26, 2009?
7. Under which Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) is the finality of this administrative decision established?
8. With which state department was the original petition filed before reaching the Office of Administrative Hearings?
9. Which individuals or entities were designated to receive mailed copies of the final order?
10. What is the official case identification number for this proceeding?
——————————————————————————–
Part 2: Quiz Answer Key
1. The Parties: The Petitioner is Maribeth Price, and the Respondent is the Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association. The Respondent is identified as an Arizona nonprofit corporation.
2. The Venue: The matter was handled by the Office of Administrative Hearings. This office is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
3. The Motion: On January 23, 2009, the office received a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Complaint with Prejudice. This filing also included a Request to Vacate the Hearing that had been scheduled for January 26, 2009.
4. The Hearing Status: In accordance with the stipulated motion, the hearing was officially vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings docket. This means the scheduled legal proceeding was cancelled and will not take place.
5. Presiding Official: The order was issued and signed by Lewis D. Kowal. His official title is Administrative Law Judge.
6. Finality of Decision: The document explicitly states that the order serves as the final administrative decision for the case. By dismissing the petition and vacating the hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings concluded the matter.
7. Statutory Authority: The finality of the administrative decision is supported by A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). This statute is cited to provide the legal basis for the order’s conclusion.
8. Original Filing Department: The original petition was filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The matter was subsequently transitioned to the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication.
9. Recipients of the Order: Copies were transmitted to Robert Barger (Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety), Troy B. Stratman of Mack Drucker & Watson, P.L.L.C., and Mark K. Saho of Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Wood, PLC.
10. Case Number: The proceeding is cataloged under case number 08F-H089012-BFS. This number is used to identify the specific dispute between Maribeth Price and the Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association.
——————————————————————————–
Part 3: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop detailed responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).
1. The Significance of Stipulation: Analyze the role of a “Stipulated Motion” in the context of this case. How does a mutual agreement between a Petitioner and a Respondent change the trajectory of an administrative hearing?
2. Administrative Hierarchy: Discuss the relationship between the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety and the Office of Administrative Hearings as suggested by the path of Maribeth Price’s petition.
3. Legal Finality: Explain the implications of an order being designated as a “final administrative decision” under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). Why is it necessary for an Administrative Law Judge to explicitly state this in the order?
4. Dismissal with Prejudice: Explore the legal weight of dismissing a complaint “with prejudice” within the framework of a dispute involving a Homeowners Association. What does this term imply about the Petitioner’s ability to refile the same claim?
5. Procedural Efficiency: Evaluate the process of “vacating” a hearing. How does the receipt of a motion just three days prior to a scheduled hearing (January 23 to January 26) reflect the administrative handling of legal dockets?
——————————————————————————–
Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding official (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) who hears and decides cases for a state or federal agency.
A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A)
The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited as the authority for the finality of the administrative decision.
Dismissal with Prejudice
A final judgment on the merits of a case which prevents the petitioner from bringing the same lawsuit or complaint again in the future.
Docket
The official schedule or list of cases to be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Final Administrative Decision
An order that concludes the agency’s involvement in a case, making it the definitive ruling on the matter at the administrative level.
Nonprofit Corporation
The legal status of the Respondent, Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association, indicating it is organized for purposes other than turning a profit for shareholders.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal proceeding or petition (in this case, Maribeth Price).
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or who is required to answer a legal claim (in this case, Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association).
Stipulated Motion
A formal request made to the court or judge in which both parties (Petitioner and Respondent) have agreed upon the terms.
Vacate
To cancel or annul a scheduled legal proceeding, such as a hearing.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Maribeth Price(Petitioner)
Neutral Parties
Lewis D. Kowal(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger(Director) Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Debra Blake(Agency Staff) Department of Fire Building and Life Safety H/C ATTN
Other Participants
Troy B. Stratman(Attorney) Mack Drucker & Watson, P.L.L.C. Listed in transmission copy list; specific party representation not explicitly stated in text.
Mark K. Saho(Attorney) Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Wood, PLC Listed in transmission copy list; specific party representation not explicitly stated in text.
Respondent’s Constitution Article V, Section 1; By-Laws Article X, Sections 1 and 3; By-Laws Article XI, Section 3 and 3(c)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's motion to dismiss. The single issue raised by Petitioner regarding proxy votes from 2004 pre-dated the enabling legislation for the OAH's jurisdiction (effective Sept 21, 2006), which does not have retroactive effect. Furthermore, the ALJ ruled that the Respondent's Constitution is not a planned community document subject to OAH jurisdiction.
Why this result: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction over acts occurring prior to enabling legislation and over the Association's Constitution.
Key Issues & Findings
Validity of 404 signatures used as proxy votes
Petitioner challenged the validity of proxy votes from 2004. Respondent argued the act pre-dated enabling legislation and the Constitution is not a planned community document.
Orders: Respondent's Request to Dismiss Petition granted; matter vacated.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1802
A.R.S. §§ 41-2198
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)
Ayala v. Hill, 136 Ariz. 88
Decision Documents
08F-H089008-BFS Decision – 206585.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:50 (75.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 08F-H089008-BFS
Administrative Law Decision: Leckey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club
Executive Summary
This briefing document summarizes the administrative decision in Case No. 08F-H089008-BFS, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute involved Petitioner Richard M. Leckey and Respondent Dreamland Villa Community Club regarding the validity of a 2004 vote that transitioned the Respondent from a voluntary club into a planned community.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The ruling established three critical points:
• Statutory Limitations: Administrative agencies possess only the powers granted by statute and lack common law or inherent powers.
• Non-Retroactivity: The enabling legislation providing for administrative hearings in planned community disputes (effective September 21, 2006) does not apply retroactively to acts occurring in 2004.
• Document Definition: A community’s “Constitution” does not qualify as a “planned community document” under A.R.S. § 33-1802, placing it outside the tribunal’s oversight.
Core Dispute and Allegations
The case originated from a January 2004 balloting process conducted by the Dreamland Villa Community Club. This vote resulted in the organization becoming a “planned community”; prior to this, it operated as a voluntary club.
The Petitioner’s Claims
The Petitioner challenged the validity of 404 signatures used during the 2004 balloting. While initially identified as proxy votes, the Petitioner later filed a “Correction of Testimony” clarifying that the signatures in question were counted as either regular or absentee ballots.
The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent violated specific internal governance documents:
• Constitution: Article V, Section 1.
• By-Laws: Article X, Sections 1 and 3; Article XI, Sections 3 and 3(c).
The Discovery Argument
The Petitioner argued that although the act in question occurred in January 2004, he did not become aware of the alleged violations until November 2007. This date of discovery fell after the effective date of the legislation (September 21, 2006) that authorized the Office of Administrative Hearings to oversee such matters.
Jurisdictional and Statutory Framework
The decision heavily emphasized the limited scope of administrative tribunals compared to general courts.
Limits of Agency Power
Citing Ayala v. Hill, the ALJ noted that the Office of Administrative Hearings has no common law or inherent powers. Its jurisdiction is strictly confined to:
1. Determining if an association violated provisions of “planned community documents” (defined as Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions [CC&Rs]).
2. Determining if an association violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16.
Definition of Planned Community Documents
A primary point of contention was whether the Respondent’s Constitution fell under the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The ALJ concluded that the Constitution is not a planned community document as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802. Consequently, the tribunal lacked the authority to address any alleged violations of that specific document.
Legal Analysis and Findings
The Respondent moved for dismissal based on the timing of the events and the nature of the documents involved. The ALJ’s analysis focused on the following factors:
Analysis of Enabling Legislation
The legislation enabling the Office of Administrative Hearings to resolve planned community disputes became effective on September 21, 2006. The ALJ found that:
• The legislation does not provide for retroactive effect.
• A cause of action must come into existence or continue to exist after the effective date of the legislation to be heard.
• The 2004 balloting was a discrete act that occurred prior to the enabling legislation.
Determination on “Ongoing” Disputes
The ALJ rejected the notion that the discovery of the act in 2007 brought the matter within the tribunal’s reach. The ruling stated that the matter did not present an “ongoing or current dispute within the spirit and intent of the enabling legislation.” Because the act itself was pre-legislative, the ALJ determined it did not give rise to a cause of action that could be brought before the tribunal.
Final Decision and Order
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that because the central issue pertained to an act occurring before the effective date of the enabling legislation, no cause of action existed for the tribunal to adjudicate.
Key Rulings:
• Dismissal of By-Law Claims: It was unnecessary to address the alleged violations of the By-Laws because no valid cause of action existed under the non-retroactive statute.
• Dismissal of Constitutional Claims: The tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the Respondent’s Constitution. Even if the Constitution were a planned community document, the claim would still fail due to the timing of the act.
Final Order: The Respondent’s Request to Dismiss Petition was granted, and the matter was vacated from the docket. Per A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), the order represents the final administrative decision and is not subject to requests for rehearing.
Study Guide – 08F-H089008-BFS
Administrative Law Study Guide: Leckey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club
This study guide examines the administrative law decision in the matter of Richard M. Leckey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club (No. 08F-H089008-BFS). It focuses on issues of jurisdiction, the retroactivity of legislation, and the definition of planned community documents.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions based on the provided administrative decision. Each answer should be between two and three sentences.
1. What was the central issue Richard M. Leckey raised during the pre-hearing conference?
2. How did the legal status of the Dreamland Villa Community Club change as a result of the January 2004 balloting?
3. Which specific internal documents did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated?
4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the timing of the alleged violations?
5. How did the Petitioner attempt to justify the timing of his petition despite the event occurring in 2004?
6. According to the decision, what defines the limits of the power and duties of the Office of Administrative Hearings?
7. What is the specific jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding planned community disputes?
8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) refuse to address the alleged violations of the Respondent’s Constitution?
9. What was the ALJ’s conclusion regarding the retroactivity of the enabling legislation?
10. What was the final outcome of the case and what is the status of the ruling?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. What was the central issue Richard M. Leckey raised during the pre-hearing conference? The Petitioner sought to challenge the validity of 404 signatures used as ballots during a January 2004 vote. These signatures, which were counted as either regular or absentee ballots, were the basis for the Respondent becoming a planned community.
2. How did the legal status of the Dreamland Villa Community Club change as a result of the January 2004 balloting? Prior to the January 2004 action, the Dreamland Villa Community Club operated as a voluntary club. Following the balloting and the counting of the contested signatures, the organization transitioned into a “planned community.”
3. Which specific internal documents did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated? The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent violated Article V, Section 1 of its Constitution. Additionally, he alleged violations of Article X (Sections 1 and 3) and Article XI (Sections 3 and 3(c)) of the Respondent’s By-Laws.
4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the timing of the alleged violations? The Respondent argued that the act complained of occurred in 2004, which predated the September 21, 2006, effective date of the enabling legislation. Consequently, they maintained that no violation could be found because the law providing for administrative hearings was not yet in effect.
5. How did the Petitioner attempt to justify the timing of his petition despite the event occurring in 2004? The Petitioner argued that while the act itself occurred in early 2004, he did not become aware of the alleged misconduct until November 2007. He contended that because his discovery of the act happened after the September 2006 effective date, the petition should be considered valid.
6. According to the decision, what defines the limits of the power and duties of the Office of Administrative Hearings? The powers and duties of administrative agencies like the Office of Administrative Hearings are strictly limited to those granted by statute. They do not possess any common law or inherent powers beyond what is specifically authorized by the legislature.
7. What is the specific jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding planned community disputes? The Office has limited jurisdiction to determine only if an association violated provisions of its planned community documents (such as Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or CC&Rs) or A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16. Jurisdiction is explicitly defined under A.R.S. §§ 41-2198 and 41-2198.01(B).
8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) refuse to address the alleged violations of the Respondent’s Constitution? The ALJ concluded that the Respondent’s Constitution does not qualify as a “planned community document” under the definition provided in A.R.S. § 33-1802. Therefore, the tribunal lacked the legal jurisdiction to determine whether a violation of that specific document had occurred.
9. What was the ALJ’s conclusion regarding the retroactivity of the enabling legislation? The ALJ determined that the enabling legislation does not provide for any retroactive effect and only applies to causes of action that come into existence after the effective date. Because the disputed signatures were from 2004, the matter did not represent a current or ongoing dispute within the spirit of the law.
10. What was the final outcome of the case and what is the status of the ruling? The ALJ granted the Respondent’s request to dismiss the petition and vacated the matter from the OAH docket. Under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A), this order constitutes the final administrative decision and is not subject to requests for rehearing.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the case facts and legal principles outlined in the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.
1. Statutory Authority and Administrative Jurisdictions: Discuss the significance of the ruling that administrative agencies lack “common law or inherent powers.” How does this principle protect or limit the rights of parties like Leckey?
2. The Principle of Non-Retroactivity: Analyze the ALJ’s reasoning for dismissing the petition based on the effective date of September 21, 2006. Why is the date of the “act” prioritized over the Petitioner’s “date of discovery”?
3. Defining Planned Community Documents: Examine the distinction the ALJ made between a “Constitution” and “planned community documents” under A.R.S. § 33-1802. What are the legal implications for an organization when its primary governing document is ruled outside the jurisdiction of a specialized administrative tribunal?
4. Procedural Dismissal vs. Merit Review: The ALJ decided it was “unnecessary to address the alleged violations” of the By-Laws because no cause of action existed. Evaluate the efficiency and fairness of dismissing a case on jurisdictional grounds before examining the actual merits of the alleged violations.
5. The Transition from Voluntary Club to Planned Community: Based on the context of the case, discuss the legal complexities involved when a voluntary organization seeks to become a regulated planned community, specifically regarding the validity of the balloting process.
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
A.R.S. § 33-1802
The specific Arizona Revised Statute that defines what constitutes a “planned community document.”
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding officer who conducts hearings and issues decisions for administrative agencies, in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Cause of Action
A set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party.
Common Law Powers
Authority derived from judicial decisions and custom rather than from specific statutes; the OAH was ruled not to possess these.
Enabling Legislation
A statute that grants new authority to a government official or agency, such as the law allowing administrative hearings for planned communities effective Sept. 21, 2006.
Jurisdiction
The official power of a legal body to make legal decisions and judgments regarding specific types of cases or documents.
Petitioner
The party who presents a petition to a court or administrative body (Richard M. Leckey in this matter).
Planned Community Documents
Specific legal filings including Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that govern a planned community.
Proxy Vote
A ballot cast by one person on behalf of another; in this case, the Petitioner initially challenged signatures used as proxy votes.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who responds to the allegations (Dreamland Villa Community Club in this matter).
Retroactive Effect
The application of a law to events that took place before the law was passed; the ALJ ruled the enabling legislation had no such effect.
Voluntary Club
The legal status of the Respondent prior to the 2004 vote, distinguishing it from a mandated planned community.
Blog Post – 08F-H089008-BFS
Why the Past Stays in the Past: 4 Surprising Lessons from the Dreamland Villa Legal Battle
The 404-Signature Dispute
In the matter of Leckey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club, homeowner Richard M. Leckey challenged the very foundation of his community’s status. The conflict centered on a 2004 vote that transformed Dreamland Villa from a “voluntary club” into a “planned community,” a shift that fundamentally altered the rights and obligations of every resident.
Leckey targeted 404 signatures used during that January 2004 balloting, which he initially described as proxy votes before clarifying in a “Correction of Testimony” that they were counted as regular or absentee ballots. This case highlights a frustrating reality: what happens when you discover a potential injustice years after the ink has dried on the deal?
The great irony of the Leckey case is that the truth regarding those 404 signatures was never actually investigated. Because of rigid jurisdictional boundaries, the court never reached the “what” of the alleged fraud; it was entirely defeated by the “where” and the “when.”
The “Non-Retroactive” Barrier
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the case primarily because the enabling legislation allowing the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to oversee such disputes did not take effect until September 21, 2006. Since the controversial vote occurred in 2004, the tribunal determined it simply lacked the authority to look backward in time.
This serves as a critical lesson for homeowners: when new laws are passed to provide protections or oversight, they rarely reach back to heal old wounds. In the eyes of the administrative court, the timeline is a hard wall that cannot be breached, regardless of the merit of the underlying claim.
The Myth of “Inherent Power”
Homeowners often walk into a hearing assuming that any judge has the “inherent power” to right a clear wrong. However, as an “Information Architect” of HOA law must warn, the OAH is not a general common law court; it is a creature of statute with a very narrow, pre-defined “menu” of powers.
Unlike a Superior Court judge, an Administrative Law Judge cannot exercise “broad justice” or create equitable remedies unless the legislature specifically wrote that power into the law. If the statute doesn’t explicitly say the judge can do it, the judge cannot do it.
The Structural Loophole of Document Labels
A major component of Leckey’s challenge involved the “Constitution” of the Dreamland Villa Community Club. Here, the court revealed a structural loophole: the OAH’s jurisdiction is strictly limited by A.R.S. §§ 41-2198 and 41-2198.01(B) to specific “planned community documents.”
In Arizona, this “menu” of reviewable documents typically includes Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and CC&Rs. Because the governing document in question was labeled a “Constitution,” the ALJ concluded it was not a planned community document under A.R.S. § 33-1802, leaving the court without the power to even address whether its provisions were violated.
For the homeowner, this is a vital architectural warning: the label of a document can determine your level of legal protection. A community governed by a “Constitution” rather than traditional “Bylaws” may inadvertently—or intentionally—bypass the administrative oversight meant to protect homeowners.
The Discovery Rule vs. The Statutory Clock
Leckey argued that while the signatures were collected in 2004, he did not discover the alleged issue until November 2007—well after the 2006 enabling legislation was in place. He believed this “discovery” should bring his case within the court’s timeframe.
The ALJ rejected this argument, taking a hardline stance on the statutory clock. The court ruled that for a dispute to be heard, the underlying act must be “ongoing or current within the spirit and intent of the enabling legislation,” rather than a completed act from the past that was only recently discovered.
This highlights the high cost of delayed discovery in administrative law. The court prioritizes the finality of the effective date over the homeowner’s personal timeline of awareness, effectively locking the door on historical grievances.
A Final Thought for Homeowners
The dismissal of the Dreamland Villa case serves as a stark reminder that in the world of HOA litigation, jurisdiction and document structure are often more important than the facts of the grievance. If your community is undergoing a transition, “real-time” vigilance is your only true protection; once the statutory window closes, it rarely opens again.
As more voluntary clubs transition into formal planned communities, we must ask: how can homeowners ensure transparency at the moment of change? If the courtroom doors are locked to the past, the only way to protect the future of a community is to get the “architecture” of the governing documents right the first time.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Richard M. Leckey(Petitioner)
Respondent Side
Jeffrey B. Corben(attorney) Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Neutral Parties
Lewis D. Kowal(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger(Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Listed in mailing distribution
Debra Blake(Agency Staff) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Listed in mailing distribution
The Administrative Law Judge ordered the petition dismissed with prejudice and the hearing vacated based on a Stipulation to Dismiss received from the parties.
Key Issues & Findings
Dismissal
The parties submitted a Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice.
Orders: Petition dismissed with prejudice and hearing vacated.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: dismissed
Decision Documents
07F-H067030-BFS Decision – 206446.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:29 (56.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 07F-H067030-BFS
Legal Briefing: Burns v. Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the final administrative resolution of the matter Jack L. Burns v. Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 07F-H067030-BFS). Following a formal “Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice” received on January 20, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued an order dismissing the petition and vacating the scheduled hearing. This action constitutes the final administrative decision regarding the petition originally filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Case Overview and Jurisdiction
The matter was adjudicated within the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, located in Phoenix, Arizona. The proceedings involved a dispute between a private petitioner and a homeowners association.
• Petitioner: Jack L. Burns
• Respondent: Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association
• Case Number: 07F-H067030-BFS
• Administrative Authority: The order was issued under the authority of A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A).
Procedural History and Resolution
The case reached its conclusion through a voluntary agreement between the parties rather than a full evidentiary hearing.
• Stipulation to Dismiss: On January 20, 2009, the Office of Administrative Hearings received a “Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice.” A dismissal with prejudice signifies that the matter is permanently settled and cannot be refiled.
• Administrative Order: On January 23, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal signed the “Order Dismissing Petition and Vacating Hearing.”
• Finality of Decision: The order explicitly states that it serves as the final administrative decision concerning the petition filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
• Docket Action: As a result of the dismissal, the matter was officially vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings docket.
Involved Entities and Legal Representation
The following table details the regulatory bodies and legal counsel associated with this case:
Entity Type
Name/Firm
Representative(s)
Regulatory Agency
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Robert Barger (Director); Debra Blake
Legal Counsel
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
James Wood, Esq.; Jason E. Smith, Esq.; Carrie H. Smith, Esq.; Chad P. Miese, Esq.
Legal Counsel
Stoops, Denious Wilson & Murray, P.L.C.
Thomas A. Stoops, Esq.; Stephanie M. Wilson, Esq.
Conclusion
The litigation between Jack L. Burns and Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association concluded in January 2009 through a formal dismissal. The issuance of the order by the Administrative Law Judge finalized the proceedings, removing the case from the active docket and providing a definitive administrative resolution to the underlying petition.
Study Guide – 07F-H067030-BFS
Study Guide: Burns v. Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association Administrative Order
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal document titled “Order Dismissing Petition and Vacating Hearing” issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It focuses on the procedural conclusion of the dispute between Jack L. Burns and the Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions using 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the source context.
1. Who are the primary petitioner and respondent in case No. 07F-H067030-BFS?
2. What specific document was received by the Office of Administrative Hearings on January 20, 2009?
3. What was the final outcome for the petition originally filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?
4. Who served as the Administrative Law Judge for this matter, and on what date was the order finalized?
5. What does the order state regarding the status of the hearing previously scheduled for this case?
6. Under which Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) is this order considered the final administrative decision?
7. Which individual and department were designated to receive a mailed copy of the order on behalf of the state?
8. What is the physical address of the Office of Administrative Hearings where this order originated?
9. Which law firm listed in the document is located in Tempe, Arizona?
10. How many different law firms are identified as receiving copies of the order, excluding the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. The petitioner is Jack L. Burns, and the respondent is the Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association. This legal matter was adjudicated under the case number 07F-H067030-BFS.
2. The Office of Administrative Hearings received a “Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice.” This document was the catalyst for the subsequent dismissal of the petition and the vacation of the hearing.
3. In accordance with the filed stipulation, the petition was dismissed with prejudice. Consequently, the matter was officially removed from the Office of Administrative Hearings docket.
4. The Administrative Law Judge for this case was Lewis D. Kowal. He signed and finalized the order on January 23, 2009.
5. The order explicitly states that the hearing for this matter is vacated. This action follows the dismissal of the petition and signifies that the scheduled proceedings will no longer take place.
6. The order is designated as the final administrative decision pursuant to A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). This citation provides the legal authority for the finality of the judge’s ruling.
7. The copy was transmitted to Robert Barger, the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. It was specifically addressed to the attention of Debra Blake.
8. The Office of Administrative Hearings is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. The office can also be reached via the provided phone number, (602) 542-9826.
9. The firm Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC is located in Tempe. Their specific address is 1400 E. Southern Ave., Suite 400, Tempe, AZ 85282.
10. Two law firms are identified: Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC, and Stoops, Denious Wilson & Murray, P.L.C. These firms represent the legal counsel involved in the case beyond the state department.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.
1. Procedural Termination: Analyze the procedural steps that led to the termination of the case between Jack L. Burns and Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association. Explain the significance of a “Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice” in concluding administrative litigation.
2. Jurisdictional Oversight: Discuss the roles of the various administrative bodies mentioned in the document. How do the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety interact based on the distribution of this order?
3. Statutory Authority and Finality: Examine the importance of A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A) in the context of this order. Why is it necessary for an Administrative Law Judge to cite specific statutes when dismissing a petition?
4. Legal Representation: Identify the multiple legal entities and individuals involved in the case. Based on the “copy transmitted” section, describe the diversity of legal counsel and departmental officials required to be informed of a final administrative decision.
5. The Role of the Administrative Law Judge: Based on the text of the order, describe the responsibilities and authorities of Lewis D. Kowal. How does his signature transform a stipulation between parties into a final administrative action?
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A judge who presides over trials and adjudicates disputes involving administrative agencies.
A.R.S.
Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Dismissed with Prejudice
A final judgment on a case that prevents the petitioner from filing another lawsuit on the same claim.
Docket
The official schedule or list of cases pending in a court or administrative office.
An official proclamation by a judge that defines the legal relationships between the parties to a hearing or directs a specific step in the proceedings.
Petition
A formal written request or document filed by a petitioner to initiate a legal or administrative proceeding.
Petitioner
The party who presents a petition to a court or administrative body; in this case, Jack L. Burns.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association.
Stipulation
A formal agreement between opposing parties regarding some aspect of the legal proceedings.
Vacate
To cancel or render void a scheduled event, such as a hearing or a previous order.
Blog Post – 07F-H067030-BFS
Finality in the Desert: 3 Surprising Lessons from a Decades-Old HOA Legal Battle
Homeowners Association (HOA) wars are legendary for their bitterness, often feeling like endless cycles of bureaucracy and mounting tension. For many residents, the legal path to resolving these conflicts feels like an expensive maze with no clear exit. However, looking back at historical case filings provides a rare glimpse into how these high-stakes battles eventually find a definitive, quiet conclusion.
The 2009 case of Jack L. Burns vs. Hunter Creek Ranch Homeowners Association serves as an ideal case study for this procedural closure. While the specific grievances of the parties are left out of the final order, the administrative record of its resolution offers three surprising lessons on the reality of HOA law in Arizona.
The Surprising Venue for HOA Justice
There is a distinct irony in imagining a government body associated with sirens and safety inspections adjudicating a community property dispute. Yet, this petition was filed not in a traditional civil court, but with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. This administrative quirk highlights a unique structure where a department focused on physical safety also manages the delicate intricacies of homeowner petitions.
This oversight provides a specialized, structured alternative to the often-congested civil court system in Maricopa County. By utilizing the Office of Administrative Hearings, parties can navigate community-governance issues through a formal process that is both rigorous and geographically anchored.
The Power of the “Stipulation to Dismiss”
In the legal world, a dramatic courtroom victory is often less effective than a mutual ceasefire. Although the parties were represented by professional counsel from established firms—including Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC and Stoops, Denious Wilson & Murray, P.L.C.—they ultimately bypassed a judge’s ruling. Instead, the matter was resolved through a “Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice,” signaling a permanent end to the conflict.
A stipulation is a powerful tool because it implies a settlement or resolution reached between the Petitioner and Respondent themselves rather than a forced outcome. By dismissing the case “with prejudice,” both Jack L. Burns and the HOA ensured the matter was closed forever and could never be refiled.
The Weight of Administrative Finality
The finality of these community disputes is backed by the full weight of Arizona statutory authority. In this instance, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued an order that serves as the “final administrative decision” under A.R.S. § 41.2198.04(A). This legal designation ensures that once the judge’s pen hits the paper, the administrative chapter for the community is officially and legally shut.
The act of “vacating” the hearing serves as the ultimate shutdown of the state’s legal machinery. When Judge Kowal marked the document “Done this day” on January 23, 2009, he effectively cleared the docket and released both parties from the burden of further litigation. This signature represented the exact moment the legal engine stopped, and the dispute ceased to exist in the eyes of the law.
Conclusion and Forward-Looking Reflection
The case of Burns vs. Hunter Creek Ranch demonstrates the quiet, procedural way that even the most complex community disputes eventually reach their end. It serves as a reminder that behind every legal filing is a human conflict seeking a resolution that the law can finally authorize.
In our own community disagreements, is a mutual “stipulation” always a better victory than a courtroom battle? Perhaps the most important takeaway is that even a one-page dismissal represents the end of a significant chapter, allowing a community to finally move forward.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jack L. Burns(petitioner)
Neutral Parties
Lewis D. Kowal(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge
Robert Barger(Director) Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Debra Blake(agency staff) Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Other Participants
James Wood(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC Esq.
Jason E. Smith(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC Esq.
Carrie H. Smith(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC Esq.
Chad P. Miese(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC Esq.
Thomas A. Stoops(attorney) Stoops, Denious Wilson & Murray, P.L.C. Esq.
Stephanie M. Wilson(attorney) Stoops, Denious Wilson & Murray, P.L.C. Esq.
The ALJ granted the Respondent's Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissed the Petition. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to follow the mandatory dispute resolution procedures in the CC&Rs, which required binding arbitration after mediation failed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to submit the dispute to binding arbitration as required by CC&Rs Article 15.5.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to Follow Dispute Resolution Provisions
Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to enter mediation. The ALJ found that mediation occurred but failed, and under CC&Rs Article 15.5, the Petitioner was required to submit the dispute to binding arbitration rather than filing a Petition with the Department.
Orders: Respondent's Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted; Petition is dismissed; Petitioner ordered to comply with Article 15 (Arbitration).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 15
A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A)
Decision Documents
08F-H089005-BFS Decision – 204829.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:46 (77.2 KB)
Briefing Doc – 08F-H089005-BFS
Briefing Document: Renner v. Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding the dispute between Petitioner Patrick Renner and Respondent Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association (Case No. 08F-H089005-BFS).
The core of the dispute centers on the enforcement of the dispute resolution provisions outlined in the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Following a previously settled petition, the Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to engage in mediation as required. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while mediation was attempted and ultimately failed, the Petitioner bypassed the contractually mandated next step—binding arbitration—by filing a second administrative petition.
The ALJ concluded that the Respondent had complied with the CC&Rs, while the Petitioner had not. Consequently, the Respondent’s Motion to Compel Arbitration was granted, and the Petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Entity
Detail
Case Number
08F-H089005-BFS
Petitioner
Patrick Renner
Respondent
Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association
Jurisdiction
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Brian Brendan Tully, Administrative Law Judge
Date of Decision
December 23, 2008
——————————————————————————–
Procedural History and Background
The Initial Petition
The current case represents the second petition filed by Patrick Renner against the Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association. The first petition was resolved through a settlement agreement where both parties agreed to utilize the dispute resolution provisions found in the community’s CC&Rs. That initial case was dismissed following the settlement and reached finality as neither party appealed the decision to the Superior Court.
The Second Petition
The Petitioner filed the instant case with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, alleging that the Respondent failed to follow the CC&Rs’ dispute resolution provisions following the closure of the first case. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed the Respondent refused to enter into mediation.
In response, the Respondent filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on November 21, 2008. Following a prehearing conference on December 10, 2008, the ALJ evaluated whether the parties had adhered to their contractual obligations.
The conduct of the parties is governed by Article 15 of the CC&Rs, which stipulates that all claims must be resolved exclusively through specific procedures. The hierarchy of resolution includes:
1. Negotiation (Article 15.2): The parties must first attempt to resolve disputes through negotiation within a prescribed timeframe.
2. Mediation (Article 15.4): If negotiation is unsuccessful, the dispute must be submitted to mediation under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) or another mutually agreed-upon independent mediator.
3. Binding Arbitration (Article 15.5): If mediation fails to resolve the dispute, the claimant is required to submit the matter to binding arbitration.
——————————————————————————–
Analysis of the Dispute Resolution Process
The evidence presented during the proceedings established a timeline of the parties’ attempts to resolve their conflict:
• Failure of Negotiation: The parties were unable to reach an agreement through initial negotiation.
• Engagement in Mediation: The parties moved to mediation, agreeing to use Marc Kalish as a private mediator. To reduce costs, the parties permitted the mediator to participate via telephone.
• The Mediation Impasse: A tentative settlement was reached during mediation; however, the Respondent subsequently refused to execute the written agreement. The Respondent then requested a second mediation session.
• Mediator’s Conclusion: Mediator Marc Kalish informed the parties that further mediation efforts would be a “waste of the parties’ money and [his] time,” effectively declaring the mediation process a failure.
——————————————————————————–
Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusions
The Administrative Law Judge reached the following conclusions based on the sequence of events:
• Compliance of Respondent: The Respondent was found to have complied with the requirements of Article 15. The refusal to sign a tentative agreement and the subsequent failure of the mediation process did not constitute a breach of the CC&Rs.
• Failure of Petitioner: The ALJ determined that the Petitioner was the party who failed to comply with the CC&Rs. Rather than proceeding to binding arbitration as required by Article 15.5 after the mediation failed, the Petitioner improperly filed a second petition with the Department.
• Prevailing Party Status: Because the Petitioner did not adhere to the mandatory contractual procedures, he was not deemed the prevailing party. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), the Petitioner is not entitled to the reimbursement of filing fees.
——————————————————————————–
Final Administrative Order
The Office of Administrative Hearings issued the following orders:
1. Motion to Compel Arbitration: The Respondent’s motion is granted. The parties are directed to proceed to binding arbitration pursuant to Article 15.5 of the CC&Rs.
2. Mandatory Compliance: The Petitioner is ordered to comply with all provisions of Article 15 of the CC&Rs regarding the current dispute.
3. Dismissal: Case No. HO-08-9/005 (Docket No. 08F-H089005-BFS) is dismissed.
Appeal Rights
This order constitutes the final administrative decision and is not subject to a request for rehearing. Any party wishing to appeal must file a complaint in the Superior Court within 35 days of the service of this decision, as per A.R.S. § 12-904(A). Service is considered complete upon personal delivery or five days after the decision is mailed to the party’s last known address.
Study Guide – 08F-H089005-BFS
Study Guide: Renner v. Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Patrick Renner and the Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association. It focuses on the application of dispute resolution provisions within community association governing documents and the procedural requirements for legal recourse in such matters.
Short-Answer Quiz
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative case, and what is the nature of their relationship?
2. What was the resolution of the first petition filed by the Petitioner?
3. On what grounds did the Petitioner file the second petition against the Respondent?
4. According to Article 15.2 of the CC&Rs, how must claims between the parties be resolved?
5. What does Article 15.4 of the CC&Rs dictate regarding the selection of a mediator?
6. Under what conditions does Article 15.5 require a claimant to submit to binding arbitration?
7. Who was selected as the private mediator for the parties’ second dispute, and why did he participate via telephone?
8. Why did the mediation process between the Petitioner and Respondent ultimately fail?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final ruling regarding the second petition and the Respondent’s motion?
10. What are the specific requirements for a party wishing to appeal the final administrative decision?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Patrick Renner, designated as the Petitioner, and the Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association, designated as the Respondent. This is a legal dispute between an individual homeowner and his homeowners association regarding the enforcement of community rules and procedures.
2. The first petition was resolved through a settlement agreement between the parties, the essential terms of which were read into the record. Because neither party appealed the decision to the Superior Court, the case reached finality and was dismissed.
3. The Petitioner filed the second petition alleging that the Respondent failed to follow the dispute resolution provisions of the CC&Rs after the first case closed. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed that the Respondent failed to enter into mediation as required.
4. Article 15.2, titled “Agreement to Resolve Certain Disputes Without Litigation,” states that the parties contractually agreed that all claims must be resolved exclusively through the procedures set forth in Article 15. This mandates that the parties use the specific internal dispute resolution framework rather than proceeding directly to outside litigation.
5. Article 15.4 provides that if negotiation fails, a party may submit the dispute to mediation under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Alternatively, the parties may use an independent mediator or mediation service selected by mutual agreement.
6. Article 15.5 stipulates that if the mediation process is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, the claimant is then required to submit the matter to binding arbitration. This represents the final step in the internal dispute resolution hierarchy defined by the CC&Rs.
7. The parties mutually agreed to use Marc Kalish as their private mediator. He participated via telephone to accommodate the parties and save them the personal appearance costs associated with traveling to Flagstaff.
8. Although a tentative settlement was reached, the Respondent refused to execute the written agreement and demanded a second mediation session. The mediator, Mr. Kalish, subsequently informed the parties that further mediation would be a waste of time and money, effectively ending the process.
9. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and ordered the Petitioner to comply with Article 15.5 of the CC&Rs. Consequently, the second petition was dismissed because the Petitioner had failed to pursue binding arbitration before filing with the Department.
10. A party must file a complaint to review the final administrative decision within thirty-five days of the decision being served. Service is considered complete upon personal delivery or five days after the decision is mailed to the party’s last known address.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
1. Hierarchy of Dispute Resolution: Analyze the progression of dispute resolution steps mandated by Article 15 of the CC&Rs. Explain why the Petitioner’s decision to file a second petition with the Department was deemed a failure to comply with this hierarchy.
2. The Role of Mediation in Contractual Disputes: Discuss the mediation process as described in the text, including the roles of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and private mediators. How does the text characterize the limitations of mediation in ensuring a resolution?
3. Procedural Finality and Appeals: Examine the legal standards for finality in administrative decisions as presented in the case. What are the consequences of failing to appeal a decision, as seen in the transition between the first and second petitions?
4. Contractual Obligations vs. Administrative Filing: Evaluate the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to file a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety and his contractual obligations under the CC&Rs. Why did the CC&Rs take precedence in this ruling?
5. The “Prevailing Party” and Financial Responsibility: Discuss the legal reasoning behind denying the Petitioner’s request for filing fee reimbursement. How is the status of “prevailing party” determined in this administrative context according to A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A)?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
• A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 / 41-2198.02(A): Arizona Revised Statutes governing the filing fees and the reimbursement of those fees for parties involved in administrative hearings regarding homeowners associations.
• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears arguments, and issues binding decisions or orders.
• American Arbitration Association (AAA): A national organization that provides alternative dispute resolution services, including mediation and arbitration.
• Binding Arbitration: A formal dispute resolution process where an impartial third party makes a final, legally enforceable decision that the parties are contracted to follow.
• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions): The governing documents of a community association that outline the rules, regulations, and contractual obligations of the members and the association.
• Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety: The state agency responsible for overseeing certain aspects of homeowners association disputes in this jurisdiction.
• Mediation: A collaborative process where a neutral third party (mediator) assists disputing parties in reaching a voluntary agreement.
• Motion to Compel Arbitration: A legal request asking the court or judge to order a party to honor a contractual agreement to resolve a dispute through arbitration rather than litigation or administrative petitions.
• Petitioner: The party who initiates a legal or administrative action by filing a petition.
• Prevailing Party: The party in a legal proceeding that succeeds on the main issues and is often entitled to certain recoveries, such as filing fees.
• Respondent: The party against whom a legal or administrative action is filed.
• Settlement Agreement: A voluntary agreement between parties to resolve a dispute, often resulting in the dismissal of pending legal actions.
Blog Post – 08F-H089005-BFS
When Mediation Fails: 4 Hard Truths About HOA Legal Battles
1. Introduction: The “Forever Dispute” Trap
There is a specific, grinding frustration reserved for homeowners who believe they have reached the end of a legal battle, only to find themselves trapped in a loop. It is the “forever dispute”—a scenario where a settlement is reached, yet the conflict continues to evolve until the “resolution process” itself becomes the new battlefield.
In the case of Renner vs. Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association, we see a classic cautionary tale of a strategic tactical error. The Petitioner sought justice through the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, only to have his case dismissed. The surprising reality is that the Petitioner actually helped build the trap that snared him: by settling his first petition and agreeing to follow the community’s private dispute resolution rules, he effectively locked the door to administrative relief for all future related claims.
2. Takeaway 1: Even Professional Mediators Have a Breaking Point
In this matter, the parties attempted to resolve their issues through a private mediator, Marc Kalish. In a clear attempt to manage resources, the parties even agreed to let Mr. Kalish participate via telephone to save the costs of a personal appearance in Flagstaff. However, after a “tentative settlement” was reached, the Respondent (the HOA) refused to sign the written agreement and demanded a second mediation session.
When the mediator was asked to continue, he recognized that the process had reached a terminal dead end. He provided a blunt assessment that serves as a warning to anyone over-relying on mediation:
From a strategic standpoint, mediation is a tool for assistance, not a guarantee of resolution. Even when one party is perceived as obstructive, a mediator has no power to force a signature; they can only signal when the process has shifted from a productive negotiation to a total drain on resources.
3. Takeaway 2: The Contract is King (The Power of CC&Rs)
The legal foundation of this dismissal rested on Article 15 of the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Article 15.2 dictates that all claims shall be resolved “exclusively” in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Article.
This is where the Petitioner’s earlier settlement became a “contractual bottleneck.” Because the first petition was dismissed based on a settlement where the parties agreed to the CC&R process, those terms became the exclusive path forward. By signing the deed to a home in an HOA, a homeowner often unknowingly signs away their right to go directly to a state department or court. From a strategic perspective, this is a total forfeiture of leverage; you are bound to a private resolution ladder that must be climbed one rung at a time, regardless of how much you may prefer a judge’s intervention.
4. Takeaway 3: You Can’t Skip the “Binding Arbitration” Step
The primary error in this case was the Petitioner’s failure to recognize a “condition precedent.” The CC&Rs established a clear, mandatory hierarchy:
• Article 15.4 (Mediation): If negotiation fails, parties move to mediation.
• Article 15.5 (Binding Arbitration): If mediation is unsuccessful, the claimant shall submit the dispute to binding arbitration.
After mediation failed following the HOA’s refusal to sign the tentative agreement, the Petitioner made a fatal tactical move: he bypassed Article 15.5 and filed a second petition with the Department. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that following the exact sequence of a dispute resolution clause is not optional. You cannot return to an administrative agency simply because the mediation phase was frustrating. Arbitration was not just a suggestion; it was a prerequisite for a valid claim.
5. Takeaway 4: The Losing Side of “Winning”
The final ruling by Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully resulted in a total dismissal of the case. While the Petitioner viewed the HOA as the party obstructing the settlement, the Judge found that the Respondent had complied with the dispute resolution provisions, while the Petitioner had not.
The consequences were both procedural and financial:
• Motion to Compel Arbitration: The Judge granted the HOA’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, legally forcing the Petitioner back into the very private process he had spent months trying to escape.
• Lack of Fee Reimbursement: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), only a “prevailing party” is entitled to an order requiring the opposing party to pay their filing fees. Because the Petitioner was not the prevailing party, he was denied any reimbursement for the costs of filing a petition that was ultimately dismissed.
The irony is sharp: the Petitioner turned to the Department to compel the HOA to act, but the legal system instead compelled the Petitioner to return to a private arbitration table dictated by the HOA’s own governing documents.
6. Conclusion: The Final Pivot
The Renner case serves as a masterclass in the weight of private contract obligations. For homeowners and associations alike, it demonstrates that “dispute resolution” is a rigid contractual framework, not a flexible suggestion. Once you agree to a specific hierarchy of remedies, that path becomes your only map.
As we evaluate the balance between private CC&Rs and the desire for judicial oversight, we must ask: In the pursuit of a “settlement,” are you inadvertently signing away your future access to the public justice system? In the world of HOAs, the “day in court” you were promised may very well be a mandatory, private, and costly seat at an arbitrator’s table.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Patrick Renner(Petitioner)
Respondent Side
Kurt M. Zitzer(Respondent Attorney) Meagher & Greer, P.L.L.P.
Kevin T. Minchey(Respondent Attorney) Meagher & Greer, P.L.L.P.
Neutral Parties
Michael G. Wales(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Vacated the scheduled hearing; ordered prehearing conference
Brian Brendan Tully(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Signed the decision
Marc Kalish(Mediator) AAA Private mediator agreed upon by parties
Robert Barger(Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Listed on transmission
Debra Blake(Agency Staff) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Listed on transmission
Default judgment entered against Respondent for failure to answer. ALJ found Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1247 and CC&Rs by failing to maintain common element drainage, causing flooding. Petitioner prevailed on the merits and was awarded filing fees and a civil penalty was imposed. Petitioner's claim for monetary damages for repairs was denied due to lack of administrative jurisdiction.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain common elements (drainage)
Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to maintain proper drainage of Common Elements, resulting in flooding of Petitioner's unit. Respondent failed to answer the petition.
Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1247 and Article 5 of the CC&Rs; reimburse Petitioner's $550.00 filing fee; pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty.
Administrative Law Judge Decision: Thomas Hogue vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums
Executive Summary
On December 22, 2008, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Brendan Tully issued a Decision on Default against Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums (Respondent) regarding a petition filed by Thomas Hogue (Petitioner). The dispute centered on the Respondent’s failure to maintain common elements and drainage systems, which resulted in significant flood damage to the Petitioner’s unit.
Due to the Respondent’s failure to file a timely answer to the petition, the ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner by default. The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee, and comply with state statutes and community governing documents. While the Petitioner incurred over $1,400 in repair costs, the ALJ noted that the administrative forum lacks the jurisdiction to award compensatory damages, which must be sought in civil court.
Case Background and Allegations
The matter (No. 08F-H089011-BFS) was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition submitted by Thomas Hogue on approximately October 20, 2008.
Core Grievances
The Petitioner alleged that on July 6, 2008, the Respondent committed specific acts or omissions that violated condominium regulations:
• Failure to Maintain: The Respondent failed to maintain drainage systems and common elements.
• Property Damage: This failure caused the Petitioner’s condominium to suffer significant flood damage during the monsoon season.
• Statutory Violations: The Petitioner cited a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1247, which pertains to the maintenance of condominiums.
Procedural Default and Legal Findings
The decision was reached primarily through a “Default,” as the Respondent failed to engage in the administrative legal process.
Timeline of Default
• Notification: Department staff mailed a Notice of Petition to the Respondent on approximately October 2, 2008.
• Receipt: On October 30, 2008, the Department received a certified mail receipt signed by the Respondent, confirming they had received the notice.
• Failure to Respond: Per A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), the Respondent was required to submit a written response within 20 days. No response was filed.
• Legal Admission: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F), the failure to file an answer is legally deemed an admission to the factual allegations in the petition.
Statutory and Document Violations
The ALJ concluded that the Respondent was in violation of both state law and the specific governing documents of the community:
• A.R.S. § 33-1247: General statutory requirement for condominium maintenance.
• Article 5 of the CC&Rs: Specifically covers “Condominium Maintenance and Repair,” requiring the association to maintain common elements to avoid issues such as flooding.
Analysis of Damages and Aggravating Factors
The ALJ’s decision highlighted several factors that weighed against the Respondent, as well as the limitations of the administrative forum regarding financial recovery.
Financial Impacts to Petitioner
The Petitioner documented specific financial losses resulting from the flooding:
• Repair Costs: $1,433.05 spent on the interior of the unit.
• Compensatory Damages: $500.00 claimed by the Petitioner.
Jurisdictional Limitation: The ALJ explicitly stated, “This administrative forum does not permit an award to Petitioner for damages.” The Petitioner was advised that claims for repair costs and compensatory damages must be addressed in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
Aggravating Factors
The ALJ identified three “strong matters in aggravation” regarding the Respondent’s conduct:
1. The failure to maintain Common Elements that led to the flooding.
2. The failure to ameliorate the damage caused to the Petitioner’s unit.
3. The failure to respond to the legal Petition.
Final Order and Compliance Requirements
The ALJ issued a structured order to penalize the Respondent and ensure future compliance with state and community regulations.
Requirement
Recipient
Amount
Deadline
Filing Fee Reimbursement
Petitioner
$550.00
Within 40 days of Order
Civil Penalty
Dept. of Fire, Building and Life Safety
$2,500.00
Within 60 days of Order
Statutory Compliance
Compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1247 and CC&Rs
Immediate/Ongoing
Enforcement and Appeal Rights
• Finality: This is a final administrative decision and is not subject to a request for rehearing.
• Enforcement: The order is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings in the Superior Court.
• Appeals: Any party wishing to appeal the final decision must file a complaint within 35 days of service, as per Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
Study Guide – 08F-H089011-BFS
Study Guide: Thomas Hogue v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law judge decision regarding the dispute between Thomas Hogue and Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums. It explores the legal mechanisms of the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, the consequences of default in administrative proceedings, and the jurisdictional limits of administrative hearings.
——————————————————————————–
Part 1: Short Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.
1. What was the core allegation made by Thomas Hogue in his petition against Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums?
2. What role does the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety play in homeowner or condominium association disputes?
3. Why was the Administrative Law Judge’s decision issued “on default”?
4. According to the document, what specific statute and internal document did the Respondent violate regarding maintenance?
5. How much was the filing fee paid by the Petitioner, and what was the final ruling regarding this fee?
6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge deny the Petitioner’s request for $1,433.05 in repair costs and $500.00 in compensatory damages?
7. What were the “matters in aggravation” cited by the judge in this case?
8. What is the significance of A.R.S. § 41-2198(B) regarding the finality of the judge’s order?
9. What are the financial penalties imposed on the Respondent aside from the reimbursement of the filing fee?
10. What is the process and timeframe for a party to appeal this final administrative decision?
——————————————————————————–
Part 2: Answer Key
1. Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to maintain proper drainage and common elements of the property. This failure resulted in significant flood damage to the Petitioner’s condominium unit during the monsoon season on or about July 6, 2008.
2. Role of the Department: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), the Department serves as the state agency where homeowners or condominium associations file petitions for hearings regarding disputes. It has the authority to receive petitions, collect filing fees, and refer matters to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
3. Decision on Default: The decision was issued on default because the Respondent failed to submit a written response to the Notice of Petition within the required 20-day timeframe. By failing to answer, the Respondent was legally deemed to have admitted to the factual allegations contained in the petition.
4. Violated Statutes and Documents: The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1247, which pertains to the maintenance of condominiums. Additionally, the Respondent failed to adhere to Article 5 of the CC&Rs (Condominium Maintenance and Repair).
5. Filing Fee Ruling: The Petitioner paid a nonrefundable filing fee of $550.00 to the Department upon filing. As the prevailing party, the judge ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner the full $550.00 within 40 days of the order.
6. Denial of Damages: The judge noted that the administrative forum does not have the jurisdiction to permit an award for damages. To seek the $1,433.05 in repair costs and $500.00 in compensatory damages, the Petitioner must file a claim in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
7. Matters in Aggravation: The judge identified three factors in aggravation: the Respondent’s failure to maintain common elements leading to the flood, the failure to ameliorate the resulting damage to the unit, and the failure to respond to the legal petition.
8. Finality of the Order: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198(B), an order from an assigned Administrative Law Judge is a final administrative decision and is not subject to a rehearing. It is legally binding and can be enforced through contempt of court proceedings in the Superior Court.
9. Financial Penalties: In addition to the fee reimbursement, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department. This payment was required within 60 days of the order, unless granted an extension by the Department.
10. Appeal Process: A party may appeal the decision to the Superior Court by filing a complaint within 35 days of the decision being served. Service is considered complete upon personal delivery or five days after the decision is mailed to the party’s last known address.
——————————————————————————–
Part 3: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.
1. The Impact of Procedural Default: Discuss how the Respondent’s failure to answer the petition shifted the burden of proof and determined the outcome of this case. How does A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F) define the legal weight of a failure to respond?
2. Administrative vs. Civil Jurisdiction: Analyze the limitations placed on the Administrative Law Judge regarding the awarding of relief. Why could the judge levy a civil penalty and order fee reimbursement but not award repair costs or compensatory damages?
3. Statutory Obligations of Condominium Associations: Examine the responsibilities of a condominium association as outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1247 and Article 5 of the CC&Rs based on the findings of this case. What are the consequences for a failure to maintain “Common Elements”?
4. The Role of Aggravating Factors in Administrative Law: Evaluate how the Respondent’s conduct—both before and during the legal process—influenced the judge’s decision-making. How do “matters in aggravation” impact the severity of the final order?
5. Enforcement and Finality: Explain the legal mechanisms that ensure an Administrative Law Judge’s decision is followed. Discuss the relationship between the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Superior Court in terms of enforcement and the appeals process.
——————————————————————————–
Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
A.R.S. § 33-1247
The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited regarding the maintenance of condominium properties and common elements.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
The statute granting the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety the authority to receive petitions and facilitate hearings for homeowner disputes.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official who reviews the facts, applies the law, and issues a final decision in administrative disputes.
Aggravation
Factors or circumstances that increase the severity of a violation or justify a harsher penalty, such as failing to ameliorate damage or ignoring a legal petition.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents of a condominium or planned community (specifically Article 5 in this case).
Civil Penalty
A monetary fine (in this case $2,500.00) imposed by the judge for violations of statutes or community documents, payable to the state department rather than the petitioner.
Common Elements
The shared areas and infrastructure of a condominium complex, such as drainage systems, that the association is responsible for maintaining.
Default
A failure to fulfill a legal obligation, specifically the Respondent’s failure to file a written answer to the petition within the 20-day statutory limit.
Petitioner
The party who initiates the legal action by filing a petition (Thomas Hogue).
Respondent
The party against whom a legal action is brought (Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums).
Blog Post – 08F-H089011-BFS
When Silence Costs $3,000: The Price of HOA Arrogance
1. Introduction
Imagine waking up to the roar of an Arizona monsoon, only to find the storm has followed you inside. As water rushes into your living room, you realize the HOA’s neglected drainage system has failed. You do the “right thing”—you document the damage, you reach out for help, and you file a formal petition. Then, you wait. And you wait. But instead of a repair crew, you get total, stony silence from your Board of Directors.
For Thomas Hogue, this wasn’t just a hypothetical nightmare; it was the reality of his life at Shadow Mountain Villas. However, as the case of Thomas Hogue vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums proves, an HOA’s “ostrich strategy”—burying its head in the sand and ignoring legal notices—is a form of procedural suicide. Today, we’re looking at a cautionary tale that reveals the surprising power of Arizona’s administrative hearing process and the heavy price an association pays when it treats a legal summons like junk mail.
2. Silence as an Admission of Guilt
In the world of community law, silence isn’t a strategy; it’s an admission. When Mr. Hogue filed his petition, the association was served a formal Notice of Petition by the state. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), the HOA had exactly 20 days to provide a written answer. They didn’t just miss the deadline; they ignored the process entirely.
This arrogance triggered a “Decision on Default.” By failing to participate, the HOA committed the ultimate legal “own goal.” Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F), because the association failed to file an answer, they were legally deemed to have admitted to every single factual allegation Mr. Hogue made. As the Administrative Law Judge noted:
Ignoring a legal problem is the fastest way to lose your right to a defense. By the time the Judge took the bench, the HOA had already “confessed” to its own negligence.
3. The High Cost of Maintenance Neglect
The facts of the case, now legally undisputed due to the default, painted a grim picture of failed stewardship. On July 6, 2008, the association’s failure to maintain common drainage elements led to significant flooding in Mr. Hogue’s unit. This wasn’t just a maintenance lapse; it was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1247 and Article 5 of the community’s own CC&Rs.
The financial “teeth” of the administrative process were applied swiftly. The Judge ordered the following:
• A $2,500.00 civil penalty.
• The mandatory reimbursement of the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee.
There is a biting irony here. The cost to simply clear a drain or fix a pipe is often a pittance. Instead, the HOA’s neglect turned a routine maintenance task into a $3,050.00 legal bill.
4. The Administrative “Dead End” for Damages
While this case is a victory for homeowner rights, it also highlights a critical jurisdictional limit that every resident must understand. In Finding of Fact #11, the Judge acknowledged that Mr. Hogue spent 1,433.05∗∗oninteriorrepairsandsoughtanadditional∗∗500.00 in damages.
However, the Office of Administrative Hearings—which operates under the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety—is not a “one-stop shop” for money. While the Judge found the HOA liable, the law does not allow this specific administrative forum to award compensatory repair costs to the homeowner. Note the payee: the $2,500.00 fine goes to the State Treasury, not the victim.
Homeowners Must Still Seek Recovery in Civil Court This is the “Administrative Dead End.” Mr. Hogue walked away with his 550.00∗∗feereimbursed,buttoactuallyseeacheckforhis∗∗1,433.05 in repairs, he would have to take this final administrative ruling and file a separate action in a “civil court of competent jurisdiction.” The administrative victory proves the HOA broke the law, but a civil judge must be the one to order them to pay for the carpet.
5. “Matters in Aggravation” and Finality
The Judge’s ruling didn’t pull any punches regarding the HOA’s behavior, citing “matters in aggrevation” [sic]. This is a legal term of art essentially meaning the HOA made a bad situation worse. The Judge specifically pointed to the HOA’s failure to “ameliorate the damage”—they didn’t just cause the flood; they stood by and watched the damage sit there. This, combined with their contemptuous silence toward the legal petition, is precisely why the civil penalty reached $2,500.00.
Boards should take note: this decision is not a suggestion. Per A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B), this order is a final administrative action. It is not subject to a rehearing. If the HOA refuses to pay the State its fine or the homeowner their fee, the order is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings in the Superior Court.
6. Conclusion: A Lesson in Accountability
The Hogue v. Shadow Mountain Villas case is a reminder that homeowners are not powerless. Arizona statutes like A.R.S. Title 33 provide the shield, and the administrative process provides the sword. While the “split” between state penalties and civil damages is a hurdle for homeowners, the “teeth” of the law are very real for negligent boards.
When an association ignores its duty to maintain the property and then ignores a legal summons, it isn’t “saving money”—it’s gambling with the community’s coffers. Is your board’s ego and lack of responsiveness worth a $2,500.00 “default” lesson from the State? If they aren’t proactive today, they might be paying for it tomorrow.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Thomas Hogue(Petitioner)
Neutral Parties
Brian Brendan Tully(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger(Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Listed on service list
Debra Blake(Agency Staff) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Listed on service list
The Respondent failed to respond to the petition and a Notice of Default was entered. The Administrative Law Judge ruled the Respondent in default and designated the Petitioner as the prevailing party. However, because the Petitioner failed to cite specific statutory provisions or governing documents in the petition, the ALJ could not award substantive relief beyond the reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee.
Key Issues & Findings
Default Judgment / Failure to Cite Provisions
Respondent failed to submit a response to the Petition and was held in default. However, Petitioner did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16 or any provision of any planned community or condominium document allegedly violated. Consequently, relief was limited to the filing fee.
Orders: Respondent is in default and Petitioner is the prevailing party. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Decision Documents
08F-H089009-BFS Decision – 204670.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:59 (54.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 08F-H089009-BFS
Administrative Ruling: Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos
Executive Summary
On December 19, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued an Order of Default and Award of Filing Fee in the matter of Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos (No. 08F-H089009-BFS). The ruling followed a Notice of Default entered on October 31, 2008, after the Respondent failed to answer the Petitioner’s allegations.
While the Respondent was found to be in default and the Petitioner was named the prevailing party, the relief granted was strictly limited to the reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee. This limitation was due to a significant deficiency in the Petition: the failure to cite specific statutory violations or governing document breaches. Consequently, while the allegations were deemed admitted by statute, they did not provide a legal basis for substantive relief beyond the recovery of costs.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
The following table summarizes the administrative and legal context of the proceedings:
Category
Details
Case Number
08F-H089009-BFS
Petitioner
Karl Riem
Respondent
Rancho Antigua Condos
Presiding Official
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Administrative Body
Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)
Overseeing Agency
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Date of Order
December 19, 2008
——————————————————————————–
Procedural History and Findings
The Entry of Default
The matter was initiated via a Petition submitted by Karl Riem to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The Respondent, Rancho Antigua Condos, failed to submit a response to the Petition. Under the administrative rules governing the Department:
• On October 31, 2008, the Director of the Department entered a Notice of Default based on the Respondent’s failure to answer.
• Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), in the event of a default, the allegations contained within a Petition can be “deemed admitted.”
Deficiencies in the Petition
Despite the Respondent’s default, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) identified critical technical omissions in the Petitioner’s filing. The Source Context notes that the Petitioner “did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16 or a provision of any planned community or condominium document that was allegedly violated by Respondent.”
Because the Petition lacked citations to specific laws (Chapters 9 or 16 of Title 33) or specific internal condominium documents, the ALJ determined that substantive relief could not be justified, even though the allegations were technically admitted through the default process.
——————————————————————————–
Final Order and Award
Based on the findings of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the following mandates were issued:
1. Prevailing Party Designation: The Respondent is officially in default, and the Petitioner, Karl Riem, is designated as the prevailing party.
2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The Respondent is ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for the filing fee in the amount of $550.00.
3. Compliance Timeline: The Respondent must complete this reimbursement within forty (40) days of the date of the Order (December 19, 2008).
——————————————————————————–
Distribution and Service
The original Order was transmitted to the following parties:
• Robert Barger, Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (Attn: Debra Blake).
• Karl Riem (Petitioner) at his Scottsdale, Arizona residence.
• Rancho Antigua Condos (Respondent) via Cuellar Realty Services in Phoenix, Arizona.
Study Guide – 08F-H089009-BFS
Study Guide: Administrative Hearing Case No. 08F-H089009-BFS
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal proceedings between Karl Riem and Rancho Antigua Condos. It is designed to facilitate an understanding of the procedural outcomes and legal limitations inherent in default judgments within the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
——————————————————————————–
Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source text.
1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this specific case?
2. What was the primary reason for the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to enter a Notice of Default?
3. Why was the Petitioner unable to receive any relief other than the reimbursement of his filing fee?
4. According to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), what happens to the allegations in a Petition when a default occurs?
5. What specific amount was the Respondent ordered to pay the Petitioner, and for what purpose?
6. Who was the Administrative Law Judge who presided over this matter and issued the order?
7. What is the deadline for the Respondent to fulfill the order for reimbursement?
8. Which two chapters of A.R.S. Title 33 were specifically mentioned as not being cited in the Petition?
9. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located, according to the document?
10. To whom was the original copy of the order transmitted on behalf of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety?
——————————————————————————–
Part 2: Answer Key
1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this specific case? The Petitioner is Karl Riem and the Respondent is Rancho Antigua Condos. The case was filed under the number 08F-H089009-BFS.
2. What was the primary reason for the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to enter a Notice of Default? The Notice of Default was entered because the Respondent failed to submit a response to the Petition. This notice was officially entered on October 31, 2008.
3. Why was the Petitioner unable to receive any relief other than the reimbursement of his filing fee? The Petitioner did not cite any specific violations of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16, or any specific community or condominium documents. Because no specific legal violations were alleged, the judge could not award further relief beyond the filing fee.
4. According to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), what happens to the allegations in a Petition when a default occurs? Under this statute, the allegations contained in the Petition can be “deemed admitted” in the event of a default. This means the facts of the petition are accepted as true because they were not contested.
5. What specific amount was the Respondent ordered to pay the Petitioner, and for what purpose? The Respondent was ordered to pay $550.00 to the Petitioner. This payment was specifically for the reimbursement of the Petitioner’s filing fee.
6. Who was the Administrative Law Judge who presided over this matter and issued the order? The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was Lewis D. Kowal. He signed the Order of Default and Award of Filing Fee on December 19, 2008.
7. What is the deadline for the Respondent to fulfill the order for reimbursement? The Respondent is required to reimburse the Petitioner within forty days of the date of the Order. The Order was issued and signed on December 19, 2008.
8. Which two chapters of A.R.S. Title 33 were specifically mentioned as not being cited in the Petition? The document specifically notes that the Petitioner failed to cite provisions from A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16. These chapters generally govern community or condominium legalities.
9. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located, according to the document? The Office of Administrative Hearings is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. Their listed phone number is (602) 542-9826.
10. To whom was the original copy of the order transmitted on behalf of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety? The original was transmitted to Robert Barger, the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The transmission was marked to the attention of Debra Blake.
——————————————————————————–
Part 3: Essay Format Questions
Instructions: Use the information from the source text to develop detailed responses to the following prompts.
1. The Importance of Statutory Citations: Analyze how Karl Riem’s failure to cite specific provisions of A.R.S. Title 33 or condominium documents affected the outcome of the case. Discuss why a “prevailing party” might still fail to receive substantive relief.
2. The Role of Default in Administrative Law: Explain the procedural implications of a Respondent failing to answer a Petition. Detail how the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety handles such failures and the legal assumptions made under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D).
3. Administrative Law Judge Authority: Discuss the role of Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal in this case. Evaluate his decision to grant a default judgment while simultaneously limiting the award to the filing fee.
4. Timeline and Compliance: Trace the timeline of this case from the Notice of Default to the final order. Explain the significance of the 40-day reimbursement window provided to the Respondent.
5. Service and Notification: Describe the administrative process for transmitting orders and notices as evidenced by the distribution list at the end of the document. Identify the key stakeholders involved in receiving the legal results.
——————————————————————————–
Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
A.R.S.
Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding officer who hears and decides cases for an administrative agency, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Default
A failure to perform a legal duty or respond to a legal proceeding, such as failing to submit a response to a Petition.
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
The state department responsible for oversight and enforcement related to fire safety, building codes, and community/condominium disputes.
Filing Fee
The administrative cost paid by a Petitioner to initiate a case; in this matter, the fee was $550.00.
Notice of Default
A formal document entered by a director or judge noting that a party has failed to respond to a legal action within the required timeframe.
A formal instruction or decision issued by a judge (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) that mandates specific actions or determines the outcome of a case.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition (Karl Riem).
Prevailing Party
The party in a legal proceeding that is deemed successful; despite receiving limited relief, the Petitioner was named the prevailing party due to the Respondent’s default.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition or legal action is filed (Rancho Antigua Condos).
Source Fidelity Note: This study guide is based entirely on excerpts from the “204670.pdf” document regarding Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos.
Blog Post – 08F-H089009-BFS
Why “Winning” Your Case Isn’t Always a Victory: Lessons from an Administrative Default
1. Introduction: The High Cost of a Quiet Courtroom
In the pursuit of legal redress, many litigants imagine the “gold standard” of outcomes: a scenario where the opposition fails to respond, leading to an automatic victory. From a strategic perspective, however, a procedural win is often a hollow shell if it lacks a substantive foundation. The case of Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos (No. 08F-H089009-BFS) serves as a stark reminder that even when the other side remains silent, the burden of pleading remains with the petitioner.
Processed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, this case illustrates how a failure to establish a statutory nexus can turn a “win” into a net loss of time and resources. For the petitioner, the “high cost” was not just the filing fee, but the forfeiture of any meaningful relief due to a fundamental failure of pleading.
2. The Default Trap: When Silence is an Admission, but Not a Guarantee
The procedural timeline of this matter began with a significant tactical advantage for the Petitioner. On October 31, 2008, the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety entered a Notice of Default against the Respondent, Rancho Antigua Condos, following their failure to submit a formal response to the Petition.
Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), a default allows the Administrative Tribunal to deem the factual allegations in the petition as admitted. While this technically designates the Petitioner as the “prevailing party,” a Legal Insights Strategist must recognize this as a double-edged sword. Admitting the facts does not automatically equate to proving a legal violation that warrants a specific remedy. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is still bound by the statutory framework of the initial filing.
The final Order emphasizes this distinction:
3. The Citation Gap: Why Specificity is the Soul of Legal Relief
The primary obstacle in Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos was a critical “citation gap.” Despite the Respondent’s default, ALJ Lewis D. Kowal noted that the Petitioner failed to state a claim upon which substantive relief could be granted. Specifically, the Petitioner did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 (the Arizona Condominium Act) or Chapter 16 (the Planned Communities Act), nor any specific governing documents of the condominium association.
In Arizona property law, these chapters function as the “constitutions” of dispute resolution. Without anchoring allegations to these statutes, a Petitioner fails to establish the necessary statutory basis for a cause of action. The OAH cannot manufacture a legal theory or invent a remedy that the Petitioner has not explicitly requested through proper statutory citation.
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
4. The $550 Victory: A Breakdown of the Final Award
The final Order, issued on December 19, 2008, resulted in what can only be described as a pyrrhic victory. Although the Petitioner “won” the case, the lack of substantive legal grounding meant that the only recovery permitted was the restitution of the costs required to initiate the hearing.
Summary of the Orders issued by ALJ Lewis D. Kowal:
• Notice of Default: Confirmed the Respondent’s default status based on the Director’s October 31 entry.
• Prevailing Party Designation: Officially named Karl Riem as the prevailing party in the administrative matter.
• Reimbursement Window: Ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee within forty days of the December 19, 2008, Order.
From an analytical standpoint, the Petitioner ended the dispute in the exact financial position they occupied before the filing, minus the significant “opportunity cost” of the time invested in the litigation.
5. Conclusion: The Importance of a Solid Foundation
The Riem case serves as a masterclass in the importance of preparation and legal precision. In administrative law, the tribunal’s power is not broad; it is specific and tethered to the law. A “win” by default does not relieve a petitioner of the duty to build a solid evidentiary and legal foundation. Simply identifying a grievance is insufficient; one must bridge the gap between a perceived wrong and the specific legislative acts—such as the Arizona Condominium and Planned Communities Acts—that govern it.
——————————————————————————–
Ponder This
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Karl Riem(petitioner)
Neutral Parties
Lewis D. Kowal(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge
Robert Barger(Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Debra Blake(Agency Staff) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
