Category Archives: HOA Cases

Pennington, Warren and Hazel and Mary Chastain -v- Starlight Pines Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H078008-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-01-14
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome false
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Mary Chastain Counsel —
Respondent Starlight Pines Homeowners Association Counsel Melissa Lin

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1802(3)
A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
CC&R Section 3.7

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Association's non-compliance letter did not constitute a formal Notice of Violation triggering statutory procedures, and that the Architectural Committee had acted outside its authority in granting permanent approval for an RV in violation of CC&R Section 3.7.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) or the CC&Rs because no formal violation notice was issued and the prior committee approval was invalid.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Definitional Provision

Petitioner alleged the Association violated the definitional provision of the statute.

Orders: ALJ ruled that the Association could not have violated a definitional provision.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 3

Violation of Enforcement Procedures

Petitioner alleged the Board violated statutory procedures by sending a non-compliance letter regarding an RV without following notice requirements.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 4
  • 13
  • 14

RV Parking Approval Validity

Petitioner claimed valid approval for RV placement based on Architectural Committee permission.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 3
  • 4
  • 14

Decision Documents

08F-H078008-BFS Decision – 183610.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:21:17 (80.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H078008-BFS


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Chastain v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law decision in the matter of Mary Chastain (Petitioner) vs. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association (Respondent), Case No. 08F-H078008-BFS. The dispute centered on the placement of a recreational vehicle (RV) on Lot 489 within the Starlight Pines community and whether the Association violated state statutes and its own governing documents by rescinding a previous approval.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Lewis D. Kowal, ruled in favor of the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association, dismissing the petition. The core of the decision rested on two findings: first, that the Association’s Architectural Committee exceeded its authority by granting “permanent approval” for an RV in violation of established property rules; and second, that the Association’s communication to the homeowner did not constitute a formal “notice of violation” under A.R.S. § 33-1803(E), thereby nullifying the Petitioner’s claims of statutory violation.

Procedural and Factual Background

Parties and Lot Ownership

• Petitioner: Mary Chastain, acting on her own behalf and representing Warren and Hazel Pennington.

• Respondent: Starlight Pines Homeowners Association (the “Association”).

• Property: Lot 489 of the Starlight Pines community, co-owned by the Petitioner and the Penningtons.

Sequence of Events

1. Request for RV Placement (October 2, 2006): The Penningtons submitted a request to the Association’s Architectural Committee (“Committee”) to park an RV on their lot.

2. Committee Approval (November 29, 2006): The Committee granted “permanent approval” for the RV placement.

3. Board Intervention (January 20, 2007): The Association’s Board of Directors (“Board”) became aware of the approval and determined the Committee lacked the authority to grant permanent placement.

4. Issuance of Non-Compliance Letter (February 8, 2007): The Board sent a letter to the Penningtons stating the RV was not in compliance with Board policy and that the Committee’s approval was invalid.

5. Homeowner Response (February 23, 2007): The Penningtons responded to the non-compliance letter via mail.

Core Legal and Regulatory Themes

1. Limits of Committee Authority vs. Board Policy

The primary conflict involved a discrepancy between the actions of the Architectural Committee and the “Properties Rules” adopted by the Board.

• The Four-Day Rule: Credible evidence established that the Association had adopted a property rule pertaining to Section 3.7 of the Declaration of Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This rule limited the presence of sleeping units like RVs on a lot to a maximum of four days, specifically for the purposes of loading, unloading, and cleaning.

• Committee Misinterpretation: Bruce Johnson, a Committee member who signed the approval, testified that he was aware of the time-limit rule but “believed the rule was not binding on the Committee.”

• Judicial Determination: The ALJ found that the Committee did not have the authority to grant permanent approval as it directly contradicted Section 3.7 of the CC&Rs and the respective property rule.

2. Statutory Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1803

The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E). The court’s analysis focused on whether the Association’s actions triggered the requirements of this statute.

Statutory Provision

Court’s Interpretation / Finding

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Requires associations to provide specific information within ten business days of receiving a member’s response to a notice of violation.

A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)

Specifically applicable only in situations where a formal notice of violation has been issued.

The Feb 8 Letter

The ALJ determined this was a “non-compliance letter,” not a “notice of violation.”

The Board had established a multi-step enforcement procedure:

1. Issuance of a non-compliance letter.

2. A fifteen-day grace period for compliance.

3. Referral to the association manager for the issuance of a formal violation notice if non-compliance persists.

Because the Association had only reached the first step and had not yet issued a formal violation notice or imposed any penalties, it could not have violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E).

3. Burden of Proof

Under administrative law, the Petitioner bore the “preponderance of the evidence” burden. The court defined this as evidence that is “more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition to it.” The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden regarding the alleged violations of the CC&Rs, Property Rules, or state statutes.

Conclusions of Law and Final Order

The Office of Administrative Hearings reached the following conclusions:

• The Association acted within its rights to adopt “Properties Rules” under Section 4.3 of the CC&Rs.

• The Committee’s grant of permanent approval was invalid as it was “not in accordance with the Properties Rules and Section 3.7 of the CC&Rs.”

• The Association did not issue a formal notice of violation; therefore, no statutory violation occurred.

• The Association had not yet taken action to enforce community documents beyond the initial letter, and no penalties had been imposed on the Penningtons.

Final Disposition: The Petition was dismissed on January 14, 2008. The order was designated as the final administrative decision, enforceable through contempt of court proceedings but not subject to a request for rehearing.






Study Guide – 08F-H078008-BFS


Study Guide: Chastain v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between Mary Chastain and the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association (No. 08F-H078008-BFS). It examines the legal standards for homeowner association (HOA) enforcement, the hierarchy of authority between association committees and boards, and the specific application of Arizona Revised Statutes.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided case text.

1. Who were the original parties involved in the petition, and how was the caption amended?

2. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) ruling regarding the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1802(3)?

3. What specific request did the Penningtons submit to the Architectural Committee on October 2, 2006?

4. How did the Starlight Pines Board of Directors respond when they discovered the Architectural Committee’s decision regarding the RV?

5. According to the Association’s enforcement procedures, what is the process that follows the issuance of a non-compliance letter?

6. What did the “Properties Rules” established under Section 4.3 of the CC&Rs specifically state regarding recreational vehicles?

7. Why did the ALJ determine that the Committee’s approval for the RV placement was invalid?

8. How did the ALJ define the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence”?

9. What was the significance of the distinction between a “non-compliance letter” and a “notice of violation” in this case?

10. What was the final order issued by the ALJ on January 14, 2008?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Parties and Caption Amendment: The original petitioners were Warren Pennington, Hazel Pennington, and Mary Chastain. At the start of the hearing, the parties agreed that Mary Chastain would be the designated Petitioner, and the caption was amended to reflect this change.

2. Ruling on A.R.S. § 33-1802(3): The ALJ ruled that the Association could not have violated this specific provision. The decision noted that A.R.S. § 33-1802(3) is a definitional provision rather than a substantive requirement that can be breached.

3. The Penningtons’ Request: On October 2, 2006, the Penningtons submitted a formal request to the Association’s Architectural Committee. They sought permission to have a recreational vehicle (RV) placed on their specific lot (Lot 489) within the Starlight Pines community.

4. Board’s Response to the Committee: After becoming aware of the Committee’s permanent approval on January 20, 2007, the Board determined the Committee lacked the authority to grant such permission. Consequently, on February 8, 2007, the Board issued a non-compliance letter to the Penningtons.

5. Enforcement Procedures: The Association’s policy dictates that a non-compliance letter is issued first to seek voluntary adherence to the CC&Rs. If compliance is not achieved within fifteen days, the matter is referred to the association manager for the formal issuance of a violation notice.

6. RV Property Rules: The property rule pertaining to Section 3.7 of the CC&Rs allows units such as RVs on a property only for loading, unloading, and cleaning. The rule explicitly limits the duration of an RV’s presence on a member’s property to a maximum of four days.

7. Invalidity of Committee Approval: The ALJ found the Committee’s permanent approval invalid because it did not comply with Section 3.7 of the CC&Rs or the respective property rules. The Committee did not have the authority to override established Association rules that limited RV stays to four days.

8. Preponderance of the Evidence: The ALJ defined this standard as evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence. It is reached when the facts sought to be proved are shown to be “more probable than not.”

9. Letter vs. Notice Distinction: This distinction was critical because A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) only applies when a formal “notice of violation” has been issued. Since the Association only issued a “non-compliance letter” and took no further enforcement action or penalties, the statutory requirements for violation notices were not triggered.

10. Final Order: The ALJ ordered that no action was required of the Association and dismissed the Petition. The order was designated as the final administrative decision, enforceable through contempt of court proceedings under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B).

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. Analyze the Conflict of Authority: Discuss the hierarchy of authority between the Architectural Committee and the Board of Directors as presented in this case. How does the “Properties Rules” act as a limit on the decision-making power of sub-committees?

2. Statutory Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1803: Explain the legal requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1803 regarding notices of violation. Why did the Petitioner’s claim fail based on the specific type of correspondence sent by the Board?

3. The Role of Evidence and Testimony: Evaluate the testimony of Bruce Johnson and Pat Norton. How did their conflicting or inconsistent testimonies regarding the existence and binding nature of the property rules influence the ALJ’s findings of fact?

4. Due Process in HOA Enforcement: Examine the Association’s multi-step enforcement procedure (non-compliance letter followed by a violation notice). How does this structure protect both the Association and the homeowner, and how did it serve as a defense for the Association in this matter?

5. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Using the definition of “preponderance of the evidence,” describe the burden placed upon Mary Chastain in this hearing. Why did the ALJ conclude that she failed to meet this burden regarding the alleged violations of the CC&Rs?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)

A specific Arizona statute applicable in situations where an association has issued a formal notice of violation to a member.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies or administrative bodies.

Architectural Committee

A sub-body within the Association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying member requests for property modifications or placements.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; the legal document that outlines the rules and limitations governing a planned community.

Non-compliance Letter

A preliminary communication from the Board to a homeowner stating that a condition on their property does not meet community standards; distinct from a formal violation notice.

Petition

The formal written request or complaint filed by the Petitioner to initiate the legal proceeding.

Petitioner

The party who brings a case or claim against another in an administrative or legal setting (in this case, Mary Chastain).

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition.

Properties Rules

Rules and regulations adopted by an association (authorized by Section 4.3 of the CC&Rs) to manage the use and appearance of the community.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or claim is filed (in this case, Starlight Pines Homeowners Association).






Blog Post – 08F-H078008-BFS


Study Guide: Chastain v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between Mary Chastain and the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association (No. 08F-H078008-BFS). It examines the legal standards for homeowner association (HOA) enforcement, the hierarchy of authority between association committees and boards, and the specific application of Arizona Revised Statutes.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided case text.

1. Who were the original parties involved in the petition, and how was the caption amended?

2. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) ruling regarding the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1802(3)?

3. What specific request did the Penningtons submit to the Architectural Committee on October 2, 2006?

4. How did the Starlight Pines Board of Directors respond when they discovered the Architectural Committee’s decision regarding the RV?

5. According to the Association’s enforcement procedures, what is the process that follows the issuance of a non-compliance letter?

6. What did the “Properties Rules” established under Section 4.3 of the CC&Rs specifically state regarding recreational vehicles?

7. Why did the ALJ determine that the Committee’s approval for the RV placement was invalid?

8. How did the ALJ define the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence”?

9. What was the significance of the distinction between a “non-compliance letter” and a “notice of violation” in this case?

10. What was the final order issued by the ALJ on January 14, 2008?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Parties and Caption Amendment: The original petitioners were Warren Pennington, Hazel Pennington, and Mary Chastain. At the start of the hearing, the parties agreed that Mary Chastain would be the designated Petitioner, and the caption was amended to reflect this change.

2. Ruling on A.R.S. § 33-1802(3): The ALJ ruled that the Association could not have violated this specific provision. The decision noted that A.R.S. § 33-1802(3) is a definitional provision rather than a substantive requirement that can be breached.

3. The Penningtons’ Request: On October 2, 2006, the Penningtons submitted a formal request to the Association’s Architectural Committee. They sought permission to have a recreational vehicle (RV) placed on their specific lot (Lot 489) within the Starlight Pines community.

4. Board’s Response to the Committee: After becoming aware of the Committee’s permanent approval on January 20, 2007, the Board determined the Committee lacked the authority to grant such permission. Consequently, on February 8, 2007, the Board issued a non-compliance letter to the Penningtons.

5. Enforcement Procedures: The Association’s policy dictates that a non-compliance letter is issued first to seek voluntary adherence to the CC&Rs. If compliance is not achieved within fifteen days, the matter is referred to the association manager for the formal issuance of a violation notice.

6. RV Property Rules: The property rule pertaining to Section 3.7 of the CC&Rs allows units such as RVs on a property only for loading, unloading, and cleaning. The rule explicitly limits the duration of an RV’s presence on a member’s property to a maximum of four days.

7. Invalidity of Committee Approval: The ALJ found the Committee’s permanent approval invalid because it did not comply with Section 3.7 of the CC&Rs or the respective property rules. The Committee did not have the authority to override established Association rules that limited RV stays to four days.

8. Preponderance of the Evidence: The ALJ defined this standard as evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence. It is reached when the facts sought to be proved are shown to be “more probable than not.”

9. Letter vs. Notice Distinction: This distinction was critical because A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) only applies when a formal “notice of violation” has been issued. Since the Association only issued a “non-compliance letter” and took no further enforcement action or penalties, the statutory requirements for violation notices were not triggered.

10. Final Order: The ALJ ordered that no action was required of the Association and dismissed the Petition. The order was designated as the final administrative decision, enforceable through contempt of court proceedings under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B).

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. Analyze the Conflict of Authority: Discuss the hierarchy of authority between the Architectural Committee and the Board of Directors as presented in this case. How does the “Properties Rules” act as a limit on the decision-making power of sub-committees?

2. Statutory Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1803: Explain the legal requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1803 regarding notices of violation. Why did the Petitioner’s claim fail based on the specific type of correspondence sent by the Board?

3. The Role of Evidence and Testimony: Evaluate the testimony of Bruce Johnson and Pat Norton. How did their conflicting or inconsistent testimonies regarding the existence and binding nature of the property rules influence the ALJ’s findings of fact?

4. Due Process in HOA Enforcement: Examine the Association’s multi-step enforcement procedure (non-compliance letter followed by a violation notice). How does this structure protect both the Association and the homeowner, and how did it serve as a defense for the Association in this matter?

5. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Using the definition of “preponderance of the evidence,” describe the burden placed upon Mary Chastain in this hearing. Why did the ALJ conclude that she failed to meet this burden regarding the alleged violations of the CC&Rs?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)

A specific Arizona statute applicable in situations where an association has issued a formal notice of violation to a member.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies or administrative bodies.

Architectural Committee

A sub-body within the Association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying member requests for property modifications or placements.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; the legal document that outlines the rules and limitations governing a planned community.

Non-compliance Letter

A preliminary communication from the Board to a homeowner stating that a condition on their property does not meet community standards; distinct from a formal violation notice.

Petition

The formal written request or complaint filed by the Petitioner to initiate the legal proceeding.

Petitioner

The party who brings a case or claim against another in an administrative or legal setting (in this case, Mary Chastain).

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition.

Properties Rules

Rules and regulations adopted by an association (authorized by Section 4.3 of the CC&Rs) to manage the use and appearance of the community.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or claim is filed (in this case, Starlight Pines Homeowners Association).


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mary Chastain (Petitioner)
    Lot 489 Co-owner
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Warren Pennington (Resident)
    Lot 489 Resident
    Agreed Mary Chastain would be designated Petitioner
  • Hazel Pennington (Resident)
    Lot 489 Resident
    Agreed Mary Chastain would be designated Petitioner
  • Bruce Johnson (Witness)
    Architectural Committee (former)
    Testified on behalf of Petitioner; former committee member who signed approval

Respondent Side

  • Melissa Lin (Respondent Attorney)
    Turley Swan Childers Righi & Torrens, P.C.
    Representing Starlight Pines Homeowners Association
  • Pat Norton (Board Member)
    Starlight Pines Homeowners Association
    Current Board member who testified

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed on distribution
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed on distribution

Sellers, John and Deborah -v- The Crossings At Willow Creek

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H078005-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2007-12-13
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome Yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John and Deborah Sellers Counsel —
Respondent The Crossings at Willow Creek Counsel Maria R. Kupilas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, determining that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide unredacted records. The ALJ rejected the Association's argument that the records contained confidential personal information.

Key Issues & Findings

Records Request Violation

Petitioners requested unredacted copies of a 'Courtesy Notice' regarding ATV usage. The Association withheld the document claiming it contained personal information protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4). The ALJ found the information was not personal in nature and should have been disclosed.

Orders: Association ordered to provide unredacted copy of Courtesy Notice dated July 12, 2007 within 40 days and reimburse $550 filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Decision Documents

08F-H078005-BFS Decision – 181959.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:21:03 (100.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H078005-BFS


Briefing Document: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek (Case No. 08F-H078005-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in the matter of John and Deborah Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek. The central dispute concerned the Association’s refusal to provide unredacted copies of community records, specifically “courtesy notice” letters regarding ATV usage, citing the “personal records” exemption under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(B)(4).

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, establishing that the names and addresses of lot owners receiving violation notices do not constitute “personal information” that would justify withholding records from other members. The decision clarified the narrow scope of the personal records exemption and reinforced the Association’s statutory obligation to provide records within ten business days. The Association was ordered to produce the unredacted documents and reimburse the Petitioners’ filing fees.

Case Overview

Attribute

Details

Case Name

John and Deborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

Case Number

08F-H078005-BFS

Hearing Date

December 3, 2007

Administrative Law Judge

Lewis D. Kowal

Primary Statute at Issue

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Disclosure)

Findings of Fact

The dispute originated from a document request submitted by John and Deborah Sellers on August 16, 2007. The following timeline and status of records were established:

• Compliant Disclosures: The Association timely provided draft records of the Board of Director’s June 7, 2007 meeting and documents related to the retention of legal counsel (Mr. Adams).

• Non-Compliant Disclosures: The Association failed to provide correspondence or notices relating to “the Behns.”

• The Redacted Document: On October 24, 2007 (exceeding the 10-day statutory limit), the Association sent copies of letters regarding ATV usage. However, these documents were redacted to hide “personal information,” specifically the names and addresses of the lot owners receiving the notices.

• The “Courtesy Notice”: After the petition was filed, the Association provided a redacted courtesy notice letter dated July 12, 2007. The core issue of the hearing was the Association’s withholding of the unredacted version of this document.

Legal Analysis and Interpretation

Statutory Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1805)

The ALJ emphasized that under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), all financial and other records of an association must be made “reasonably available for examination” within ten business days of a request. An association may only charge a maximum of fifteen cents per page for copies.

The Scope of the “Personal Records” Exclusion

The Association argued that names and addresses in violation notices are “personal information” excluded from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4). The ALJ rejected this interpretation based on several factors:

• Contractual Context: When individuals join a homeowner’s association, they enter a contract and agree to be bound by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Enforcement of these rules is a business function of the Association.

• Publicly Available Information: The ALJ noted that the identity of a lot owner is public information available through various public entities.

• Business vs. Private Information: The ALJ distinguished between “personal records” and “business records”:

◦ Protected (Confidential): Sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and specific times when a member might be away from home.

◦ Unprotected (Disclosable): Citations, notices of violations, and documents reflecting the general business of the Association.

• Policy Implications: If violation notices were considered private, a complaining member would be unable to verify if the Association had taken any action against an offending lot owner.

Limitations of Administrative Jurisdiction

The ALJ clarified that the Office of Administrative Hearings has limited jurisdiction. It cannot consider:

• The Arizona Constitution.

• A.R.S. Title 10 (Corporations).

• Common law or inherent powers.

• California case law (e.g., Chantiles v. Lake Forest II), as it is distinguishable and outside the ALJ’s statutory authority.

The ALJ’s role is strictly limited to determining violations of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16, or the planned community’s specific governing documents.

Final Decision and Order

The ALJ concluded that the Association failed to meet its burden of proof and violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Specifically, the Association did not provide the requested documents within the ten-day limit and improperly withheld unredacted copies of business-related notices.

Mandated Actions

1. Unredacted Disclosure: The Association was ordered to provide the Petitioners with an unredacted copy of the July 12, 2007 Courtesy Notice within forty days.

2. Financial Restitution: As the prevailing party, the Petitioners were awarded their filing fee of $550.00, to be reimbursed by the Association within forty days.

This decision is the final administrative action and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.






Study Guide – 08F-H078005-BFS


Study Guide: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek

This study guide examines the administrative law proceedings and legal interpretations regarding the disclosure of association records under Arizona law. It focuses on the specific case of John and Deborah Sellers versus The Crossings at Willow Creek, highlighting statutory requirements, jurisdictional boundaries, and the definition of personal information in community management.

1. What was the central dispute between the Petitioners and the Association in this case? The primary conflict involved a records request filed by the Petitioners for various Association documents, specifically regarding a “Courtesy Notice” about ATV usage. While some documents were provided, the Association withheld an unredacted copy of one notice, claiming that the names and addresses of lot owners constituted protected personal information.

2. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), what are the time requirements and potential costs for fulfilling a records request? The statute requires an association to fulfill a request for the examination of records within ten business days. If the member requests copies of these records, the association also has ten business days to provide them and may charge a fee of no more than fifteen cents per page.

3. What is the legal standard for “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the document? Drawing from Black’s Law Dictionary, the document defines a preponderance of the evidence as evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the opposing evidence. It essentially means that the facts sought to be proved are shown to be more probable than not.

4. Under what specific conditions does A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) allow an association to withhold records? Records may be withheld to the extent they relate to the personal, health, or financial information of an individual member of the association, an employee of the association, or an employee of a contractor for the association. This includes records directly related to such sensitive individual data.

5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that the Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowner’s Assoc. case was not applicable? The ALJ found the case distinguishable because the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has limited jurisdiction and cannot consider constitutional privacy rights as the California court did. The OAH is strictly confined to determining violations of specific Arizona statutes and planned community documents.

6. How does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) derive its authority, and what are the limits of that authority? The OAH is an administrative agency whose powers are limited to those granted by statute; it possesses no common law or inherent powers. In this context, its jurisdiction is limited to determining if an association violated its own governing documents or specific chapters of A.R.S. Title 33.

7. How did the ALJ define the term “personal” in the context of A.R.S. § 33-1805? Using a dictionary definition, “personal” was defined as “of or relating to a particular person.” However, the ALJ emphasized that the term must be interpreted within the context of what is being regulated, namely the business and records of a homeowner’s association.

8. What reasoning did the ALJ provide for concluding that violation notices do not constitute confidential “personal” records? The ALJ noted that the identity of lot owners is public information and that the Association’s own policy reveals the identity of complainants in initial notices. Furthermore, by analogy, legal proceedings involving violations are generally public unless specifically made confidential by statute.

9. What types of information did the ALJ identify as legitimately falling under the “personal records” exclusion? The ALJ specified that sensitive information a reasonable person would expect to remain confidential—such as social security numbers, birth dates, and specific schedules of when a member will be away from their home—would be subject to the disclosure exclusion.

10. What was the final order issued by the ALJ regarding the “Courtesy Notice” and the filing fees? The ALJ ordered the Association to provide the Petitioners with an unredacted copy of the July 12, 2007, Courtesy Notice within forty days. Additionally, the Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for their $550.00 filing fee within the same timeframe.

Answer Key

1. The dispute concerned the withholding of unredacted records (names and addresses) in an association notice regarding ATV usage.

2. The deadline is ten business days for both examination and copies, with a maximum copy fee of fifteen cents per page.

3. It is evidence that is more convincing or has greater weight than the opposition, making a fact more probable than not.

4. When records contain personal, health, or financial information of an individual member or employee.

5. The OAH lacks the jurisdiction to apply constitutional privacy balancing tests used in other states, as it is restricted to specific Arizona statutes.

6. Authority is granted strictly by statute; the OAH cannot consider legal authorities like the Arizona Constitution or Title 10 in these cases.

7. It means “of or relating to a particular person,” interpreted specifically within the context of association management.

8. Lot owner identities are already public, and the Association’s own compliance policies disclose such information during enforcement.

9. Social security numbers, birth dates, and sensitive details like home vacancy schedules.

10. The Association had to provide the unredacted document and pay the Petitioners $550.00 to cover the filing fee.

Essay Questions

1. The Scope of Administrative Jurisdiction: Discuss the limitations placed on the Administrative Law Judge in this case. How does the restricted jurisdiction of the OAH impact the types of legal arguments (e.g., constitutional vs. statutory) that can be successfully used in homeowner association disputes?

2. Defining Privacy in a Contractual Community: Analyze the Association’s argument regarding the privacy of its members versus the ALJ’s conclusion that homeowners enter into a contract that necessitates certain disclosures. How does the act of moving into a planned community alter an individual’s expectation of privacy regarding rule violations?

3. Statutory Interpretation of “Personal Records”: Evaluate the ALJ’s method of defining “personal” information. Compare the types of data the ALJ deemed “sensitive” (like SSNs) versus data deemed “business-related” (like violation notices). Is this distinction sufficient to protect members?

4. Transparency in Association Governance: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) mandates that records be “reasonably available.” Explore the importance of this transparency in the context of a member’s ability to verify that an association is fairly enforcing its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

5. The Consequences of Non-Compliance: Using the case as a reference, discuss the legal and financial repercussions for an association that fails to adhere to the ten-day statutory window for records requests. What does this suggest about the legislature’s intent regarding the promptness of association transparency?

Glossary of Key Terms

• A.R.S. § 33-1805: The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the inspection and copying of association records by members, including specific exceptions for withholding information.

• In Camera: A legal term referring to a judge’s private review of evidence (such as the redacted document in this case) to determine its admissibility or status before it is shown to the other parties.

• Limited Jurisdiction: A legal principle where a court or tribunal’s authority is restricted to specific types of cases or specific statutory violations, rather than having broad or inherent power.

• Planned Community Documents: The collective term for the governing rules of an association, including the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The burden of proof in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a claim be more likely true than not.

• Redacted: The process of censoring or obscuring specific parts of a document (such as names or addresses) before it is released to a requesting party.

• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, The Crossings at Willow Creek.

• Summary Judgment: A legal motion where one party asks the judge to decide the case based on written arguments and stipulated facts without a full trial or evidentiary hearing.






Blog Post – 08F-H078005-BFS


Case Title: John and Deborah Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek Case No.: 08F-H078005-BFS Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings Date of Decision: December 13, 2007

Proceedings and Key Facts On December 3, 2007, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal presided over a hearing regarding a records request dispute1. The Petitioners, John and Deborah Sellers, submitted a request to the Respondent, The Crossings at Willow Creek (the “Association”), on August 16, 20072. While the Association provided some records, it withheld an unredacted copy of a “Courtesy Notice” letter dated July 12, 2007, regarding ATV usage3. The Association had redacted the names and addresses of the lot owners to whom the letters were addressed34.

Main Issues The primary legal issues were:

1. Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested records within the statutory ten-day period56.

2. Whether the redacted names and addresses constituted “personal… records” under the statutory exception in A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), thereby justifying the Association’s refusal to disclose them78.

Key Arguments

• Petitioners: Argued that the Association failed to comply with the statute by not providing all requested documents within ten business days8.

• Respondent: Argued that the names and addresses of members receiving violation notices constitute “personal information.” They contended that disclosure was prohibited under the A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) exception for personal records8. The Association cited Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowner’s Assoc. and constitutional privacy rights to support withholding the information9.

Legal Analysis and Findings The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected the Association’s arguments on the following grounds:

• Jurisdiction: The ALJ noted that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to specific statutes (A.R.S. Title 33) and does not extend to constitutional privacy claims or common law; therefore, the Chantiles case was distinguishable and not controlling1011.

• Definition of “Personal”: The ALJ determined that “personal records” in the context of the statute refers to sensitive data such as social security numbers, health information, or dates a member is away from home12.

• Public Nature of Violations: The identity of lot owners is public information13. The ALJ reasoned that violation notices regarding Association rules are not inherently “personal” or confidential14. Furthermore, allowing the Association to withhold such information would prevent members from verifying if the Association is properly enforcing rules against other members13.

Final Decision and Outcome The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, concluding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)6. The Tribunal found that the document in question did not fall within the “personal records” classification and was subject to disclosure15.

1. The Association was ordered to provide the Petitioners with an unredacted copy of the July 12, 2007 Courtesy Notice within 40 days6.

2. The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00 within 40 days16.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Deborah Sellers (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf; deferred presentation to husband

Respondent Side

  • Maria R. Kupilas (HOA attorney)
    Elmark & Elmark, L.L.C.
    Listed in distribution; Respondent filed Motion for Summary Judgment
  • Mr. Adams (attorney)
    Subject of records request regarding retention as legal counsel

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed in distribution
  • Debra Blake (agency staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed in distribution

Stevens, Marilyn A. vs. Cliffs Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H078001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2007-11-06
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn A. Stevens Counsel —
Respondent Cliffs Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 4.08; By-Laws Article II, Section 1
By-Laws Article III, Section 3; Article VII, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove violations regarding the meeting date (due to waiver) and the election terms (valid amendment found).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&Rs or By-Laws; specific objections were waived or based on incorrect legal premises regarding recordation.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Annual Meeting Date

Petitioner alleged the Association held the annual meeting on an improper date (Jan 10) rather than in March or May.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Election of Directors to 3-Year Terms

Petitioner alleged that the By-Laws were not properly amended or recorded to allow for 3-year director terms.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Decision Documents

08F-H078001-BFS Decision – 179590.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:52 (94.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H078001-BFS


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Stevens v. Cliffs Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative adjudication of a dispute between Marilyn A. Stevens (“Petitioner”) and the Cliffs Condominium Association (“Respondent”). The case, heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (No. 08F-H078001-BFS), centered on allegations that the Association violated its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and By-Laws.

The Petitioner raised two primary challenges: the improper scheduling of the January 10, 2004, annual meeting and the election of Association directors to three-year terms rather than one-year terms. Following hearings in late 2007, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition. The decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to provide specific evidence of timely objections regarding meeting irregularities and the determination that the Association had legally amended its By-Laws to permit three-year director terms in 2001.

Case Overview and Procedural History

The matter was presided over by Administrative Law Judge Michael K. Carroll and later reassigned to Lewis D. Kowal. The case involved the following foundational elements:

• Parties: Marilyn A. Stevens, a member of the Cliffs Condominium Association, acting on her own behalf; and the Cliffs Condominium Association, represented by John Caldamone.

• Regulatory Context: The petition was filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

• Procedural Ruling: Despite an objection from the Association regarding the verification of documents, the ALJ ruled that the CC&Rs and By-Laws attached to the Petition were the governing documents for the matter, as both parties relied upon them during the proceedings.

Analysis of Primary Issues

Issue 1: Improper Scheduling of the January 10, 2004, Annual Meeting

The Petitioner contended that the annual meeting held on January 10, 2004, was improperly scheduled based on historical precedent (March meetings) and specific governing provisions.

Governing Provisions and Evidence:

• CC&R Section 4.08 and By-Laws Article II, Section 1: These specify that the annual meeting date should be the anniversary of the initial meeting held within 120 days of the first unit conveyance.

• Petitioner’s Argument: Witnesses testified to a lack of notice and proxy vote information. The Petitioner cited a deposition from the Association president, John Caldamone, where he admitted the meeting date violated the By-Laws.

The “Waiver” Determination: The ALJ’s decision rested on Article II, Section 9 of the By-Laws, which states:

The ALJ found that while the Petitioner claimed protests occurred, the testimony provided by witnesses (such as Connie Luckenbach) was “vague and general.” There was no reliable evidence that a specific objection regarding the meeting date was made at the January 10, 2004, meeting. Consequently, any right to object to the timing was legally waived.

Issue 2: Election of Directors to Three-Year Terms

The Petitioner challenged the validity of electing directors to three-year terms at the 2004 meeting, asserting that the By-Laws required one-year terms and that no valid amendment existed or was recorded.

Key Findings on Term Length:

• The 2001 Amendment: The Association presented evidence that a special meeting was held on April 26 or 27, 2001, where the By-Laws were amended to change director terms from one year to three years.

• Amendment Requirements: Under CC&R Section 4.07 and By-Laws Article VII, Section 1, the By-Laws may be amended by a majority of a quorum (at least 25% of total votes). The ALJ determined the weight of the evidence established that this vote occurred in April 2001.

• Recordation Dispute: The Petitioner argued the amendment was invalid because it was not “registered” or recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office. The ALJ concluded that since the CC&Rs and By-Laws did not contain an explicit requirement for amendments to be recorded to be effective, this was not a valid basis for a violation.

Legal Conclusions

The ALJ dismissed the Petition based on the following legal standards and conclusions:

Conclusion Category

Determination

Burden of Proof

The Petitioner bore the burden of proving violations by a preponderance of the evidence but failed to meet this standard for either issue.

Scope of Authority

The Petitioner requested the court to provide specific directions and monitoring of the Association. The ALJ ruled that this relief was outside the tribunal’s authority; the tribunal’s function is not to monitor and enforce compliance.

Meeting Validity

Violations regarding the 2004 meeting date were waived per Article II, Section 9 of the By-Laws.

Director Terms

The Association successfully demonstrated that the By-Laws were amended in 2001 to allow for three-year terms.

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that no action was required of the Association and the Petition was dismissed in its entirety on November 6, 2007.






Study Guide – 08F-H078001-BFS


Study Guide: Stevens v. Cliffs Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case Marilyn A. Stevens vs. Cliffs Condominium Association (Case No. 08F-H078001-BFS). It examines the legal disputes regarding association governance, the interpretation of community bylaws, and the procedural requirements of administrative hearings.

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case and what was the core of their dispute?

2. What procedural objection did the Cliffs Condominium Association raise regarding the documents attached to the Petition?

3. According to the By-Laws and CC&Rs, how is the date for the annual meeting of unit owners determined?

4. What specific evidence did the Petitioner provide to support the claim that the January 10, 2004 meeting date was improper?

5. Explain the significance of Article II, Section 9 of the Association’s By-Laws in the context of the January 10 meeting.

6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) find the testimony of Connie Luckenbach insufficient to prove an objection was made?

7. What were the Petitioner’s four main arguments regarding the illegitimacy of the three-year term for directors?

8. According to Section 4.07 of the CC&Rs, what are the requirements for a valid amendment to the By-Laws?

9. Why did the ALJ refuse to rule on whether the By-Law amendments needed to be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office?

10. What was the ALJ’s reasoning for denying the specific relief requested by the Petitioner in her closing argument?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Parties and Dispute: The Petitioner, Marilyn A. Stevens, filed a case against the Respondent, Cliffs Condominium Association. The dispute centered on allegations that the Association violated its CC&Rs and By-Laws by holding an annual meeting on an improper date and incorrectly electing directors to three-year terms.

2. Procedural Objection: The Association objected to the inclusion of Association documents attached to the Petition, asserting there was no verification they were the versions existing as of January 10, 2004. However, the ALJ overruled this, finding that the parties relied on these provisions during the hearing and the Association was not prejudiced by their consideration.

3. Annual Meeting Timing: Section 4.08 of the CC&Rs and Article II, Section 1 of the By-Laws state that the annual meeting date is the anniversary of the initial meeting. That initial meeting was required to be held within 120 days from the date the first conveyance of a unit from the Association to an owner was recorded.

4. Evidence of Improper Date: The Petitioner relied on a deposition from Association President John Caldamone, where he admitted that holding the meeting on January 10, 2004, violated the By-Laws. Additionally, witnesses testified that meetings were historically held in March or should have been held on the third Thursday in May.

5. Article II, Section 9 (Waiver): This provision states that any informalities or irregularities in meeting notices or calls are deemed waived if no objection is made at the meeting. The ALJ concluded that because the Petitioner could not prove a specific objection was raised during the January 10 meeting, any right to challenge the meeting date was legally waived.

6. Luckenbach Testimony: While Connie Luckenbach testified that objections were raised, the ALJ found her statements to be vague and general. When asked for specifics, she described issues regarding the timing of the annual meeting relative to a special meeting rather than a direct objection to the validity of the annual meeting date itself.

7. Arguments Against Director Terms: The Petitioner argued that members did not receive copies of the amendment or meeting minutes, she received outdated By-Laws when purchasing a second unit, and the amendment was not recorded. She contended that without recording the amendment with the County Recorder, the change from one-year to three-year terms was ineffective.

8. Amendment Requirements: Section 4.07 and Article VII, Section 1 dictate that By-Laws may be amended by a majority of a quorum of voting owners (at least 25% of total votes present). Furthermore, written notice of the intention to amend the By-Laws must be provided in the official notice of the meeting.

9. Recording of Amendments: The ALJ concluded that the issue of recordation was outside his jurisdiction because the Petitioner failed to cite any specific provision in the CC&Rs or By-Laws that required amendments to be recorded to be valid. Therefore, it was not a “proper issue” for the administrative tribunal to address.

10. Denial of Relief: The Petitioner requested that the ALJ provide specific directions on how the Association should act and how it should be monitored. The ALJ ruled that such oversight was outside his authority, noting that the tribunal’s role is not to monitor and enforce ongoing compliance.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Role of Procedural Waivers: Discuss how Article II, Section 9 of the By-Laws functioned as a “statute of limitations” for internal Association grievances. How did this provision impact the ALJ’s ability to rule on the merits of the meeting date, despite the President’s admission of a violation?

2. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Explain the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as applied in this case. Analyze how the Petitioner’s reliance on verbal testimony and lack of specific documentation led to the dismissal of her claims.

3. Corporate Governance and Recordkeeping: Evaluate the Association’s defense regarding the 2001 amendment of director terms. How did the conflicting testimonies between John Caldamone and the unit owners illustrate the importance of maintaining clear, accessible, and “registered” corporate records?

4. Jurisdictional Limits of the ALJ: Explore the boundaries of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority as defined in this decision. Specifically, contrast what the Petitioner requested in terms of relief versus what the ALJ was legally empowered to provide.

5. Interpretation of Governing Documents: Analyze the interplay between the CC&Rs and the By-Laws in determining Association operations. How does the ALJ prioritize the written text of these documents over historical practices or verbal admissions?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official who conducts hearings and issues decisions for state or federal agencies, in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings.

By-Laws

The internal rules and regulations that govern the daily operations and management of an organization or association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal governing documents that dictate the rules for a real estate development or condominium association.

Conveyance

The legal process of transferring the title or ownership of real property from one party to another.

Deposition

Formal, out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that is reduced to writing for later use in court or for discovery purposes.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition; in this matter, Marilyn A. Stevens.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence shows that a fact is more likely true than not true.

A written authorization allowing one person to act or vote on behalf of another person, typically used in association meetings.

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an assembly or organization 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 matter, the Cliffs Condominium Association.

Waiver

The voluntary or automatic relinquishment of a known right or claim, often resulting from a failure to object in a timely manner.






Blog Post – 08F-H078001-BFS


The HOA Trap: 5 Hard Truths About Homeowner Rights (and How to Protect Yours)

1. Introduction: The High Stakes of the “Boring” Annual Meeting

Imagine you are standing in a hearing room, facing the Board of Directors of your Homeowners Association. You have a “smoking gun”: a deposition where the Board President openly admits that the Association held its annual meeting on a date that violated the By-Laws. You assume the case is over. In any logical world, an admission of a violation leads to a victory for the petitioner.

However, as the case of Marilyn A. Stevens v. Cliffs Condominium Association (No. 08F-H078001-BFS) at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings proves, logic and administrative law are often at odds. Despite the President’s admission, the homeowner still lost. This case serves as a masterclass in how procedural traps can strip homeowners of their rights, even when they are factually correct. To survive a conflict with your HOA, you must understand that the “rules of engagement” are often more important than the rules themselves.

2. The “Silence Trap”: Your Presence Is Your Consent

The most dangerous provision in many HOA By-Laws is the waiver clause. In the Cliffs Condominium case, the Board relied on Article II, Section 9, which contains what I call the “Silence Trap.” The text is devastatingly broad:

The Failure of Informal Protests Petitioner Marilyn Stevens argued that “protests” were made regarding the meeting. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed these because they lacked formality. From a legal governance perspective, “complaining” is not “objecting.” Informal protests—such as grumbling to neighbors or airing grievances during a community forum—are legally insufficient because they do not provide the Association with a formal opportunity to “cure” the irregularity on the spot. If you attend a meeting and fail to enter a specific, formal objection into the record, the law deems that you have consented to every procedural error the Board committed.

3. Why an “Admission of Guilt” Isn’t a “Get Out of Jail Free” Card

The most shocking turn in the Stevens case involved Exhibit 8: a deposition from a separate Superior Court action where Association President John Caldamone admitted that holding the meeting on January 10, 2004, violated the By-Laws.

In administrative law, however, procedural waivers can render substantive truths irrelevant. Because the Petitioner failed to make a formal objection at the meeting, the ALJ determined in Finding of Fact #6 that it was “not necessary… to address” whether the meeting date was actually valid. The “Silence Trap” ended the inquiry before the President’s admission could even be considered. This is a brutal reality of HOA governance: a Board can admit to breaking the law, but if you missed the procedural window to object, that admission becomes legally moot.

4. The Recording Myth: Internal Rules vs. Public Records

Homeowners often fall into the trap of seeking legal advice from the wrong sources. In this case, witness Donna Nutter testified that a clerk at the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office told her that By-Law amendments must be “registered” to be valid. Relying on this, the Petitioner challenged a 2001 amendment that changed Director terms from one year to three years.

The ALJ rejected this “myth of recordation.” The “Hard Truth” is that administrative courts only care about the specific text of your governing documents, not the informal advice of a government clerk. The ALJ noted that recordation was “not a proper issue” because the Petitioner failed to cite any provision in the existing CC&Rs that required amendments to be recorded.

Under Section 4.07 of the CC&Rs and Article VII, Section 1 of the By-Laws, the only things that truly mattered were:

1. A quorum of 25% was met.

2. A “written notice of intention to amend By-Laws” was provided in the meeting notice.

3. A majority vote was obtained. If these internal hurdles are cleared, the amendment is law—whether the County Recorder has a copy or not.

5. Vague Testimony is the Enemy of Justice

Under A.A.C. R2-19-119, the burden of proof rests entirely on the homeowner. To win, you must provide “reliable evidence,” a standard the Petitioner failed to meet due to poor witness preparation.

Witness Connie Luckenbach testified that objections were raised at the meeting, but the ALJ dismissed her account as “vague and general in nature.” When pressed for specifics, Luckenbach focused on the fact that the annual meeting was held 90 minutes before a special meeting—a logistical grievance—rather than the specific legal violation regarding the meeting date.

Analyst’s Advisory: To defeat an HOA, you cannot rely on “general feelings” of unfairness. You must create a paper trail. If you believe a meeting is illegal, you must hand a written objection to the Board Secretary during the meeting and demand it be included in the minutes. This bypasses the “vague testimony” trap and creates a record that a judge cannot ignore.

6. The “Judge as a Manager” Delusion

Perhaps the most frustrating realization for homeowners is the limited scope of judicial power. Marilyn Stevens concluded her case by requesting that the Judge monitor the Association and provide specific directions on how they should operate in the future.

The ALJ flatly denied this, noting that such relief was “outside the scope” of the Tribunal’s authority. As stated in the decision’s footnote:

Homeowners often view the court as a “super-manager” that will fix a broken neighborhood. In reality, the court can only rule on whether a specific violation occurred. It will not act as a long-term watchdog. If you win, the Board is simply ordered to comply; the burden of ensuring they actually do so remains with the homeowners.

7. Conclusion: The Power of the Paper Trail

The Stevens v. Cliffs Condominium Association case is a stark reminder that in the world of community governance, the written word and the timely objection are the only real currencies of power. A Board President’s admission of guilt is worthless if you have already waived your right to complain through silence.

To protect your home and your rights, you must move beyond informal protests. You must read your governing documents with a critical eye, specifically looking for waiver clauses that trade your silence for consent.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marilyn A. Stevens (petitioner)
    Cliffs Condominium Association (Member)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Connie Luckenbach (witness)
    Cliffs Condominium Association (Unit Owner)
    Testified regarding objections at the January 10, 2004 meeting
  • Donna Nutter (witness)
    Testified regarding information received from Maricopa County Recorder's Office

Respondent Side

  • John Caldamone (respondent representative)
    Cliffs Condominium Association (President)
    Appeared on behalf of the Association

Neutral Parties

  • Michael K. Carroll (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over September 4, 2007 hearing; left OAH before decision
  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over October 22, 2007 hearing; authored decision
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution
  • Joyce Kesterman (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution

Harrold, Delores -v- Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H078003-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2007-10-25
Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Delores Harrold Counsel —
Respondent Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association Counsel Scott Humble

Alleged Violations

Master Declaration of Amended, Restated Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA did not violate its governing documents by approving a carport construction, as the documents did not prohibit such structures and authorized the committee to approve them.

Why this result: The ALJ determined that the Respondent's approval of the carport was not a variance from the HOA documents because the documents did not restrict carports for single-family homes with attached garages.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unauthorized variance for carport construction

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its documents by granting a variance for a carport. The ALJ found the documents did not prohibit approved carports, and the Architectural Control Committee had authority to approve the request, meaning no variance was actually granted.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

08F-H078003-BFS Decision – 178956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:57 (78.5 KB)

08F-H078003-BFS Decision – 179085.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:57 (56.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H078003-BFS


Briefing Document: Administrative Adjudication of Homeowners Association Disputes

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes findings from administrative proceedings held at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding disputes between homeowners and property owner associations. The primary focus is the case of Delores Harrold vs. Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association (Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS), which centers on the authority of an association to approve property modifications—specifically carports—under existing Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The core takeaway is that an association’s approval of a structure does not constitute a “variance” if the governing documents do not explicitly prohibit that structure. Consequently, a petitioner challenging such an approval must provide credible evidence of a specific violation of the Master Declaration or related bylaws. Additionally, this briefing outlines the procedural grounds upon which administrative hearings may be vacated or remanded.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Harrold vs. Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association

Background and Petitioner Claims

The Petitioner, Delores Harrold, filed a single-violation petition against the Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association on August 14, 2007. The dispute originated from the Association’s decision to allow a neighbor at 11573 Turquoise Circle to construct a two-car carport.

The Petitioner’s arguments were based on two primary assertions:

• The Association lacked the authority under its governing “HOA Documents” (CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation) to grant a variance for a carport.

• The Association violated its documents by granting said variance on or about June 18, 2007.

Findings of Fact

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established several critical facts that refuted the Petitioner’s claims:

Fact Category

Details

Property Status

The subject property maintained a single-family residence with an attached garage, fulfilling basic HOA requirements.

Approval Process

The Architectural Control Committee (ACC) approved the carport request on February 8, 2007.

Authority

The HOA Documents explicitly grant the ACC the authority to approve such construction requests.

Precedent

Other residences within the Prescott Country Club community already possess carports.

Evidence

The Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that a variance was actually granted on the date alleged (June 18, 2007).

Legal Conclusions and Ruling

The ALJ determined that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof, which is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard under A.A.C. R2-19-119(A).

• Distinction Between Approval and Variance: The ALJ concluded that because the HOA Documents do not prohibit the construction of carports for residences with attached garages, the Association’s action was a standard approval rather than a variance from the rules.

• Prevailing Party: The Respondent (the Association) was deemed the prevailing party.

• Financial Implications: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), the Petitioner was denied reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee.

• Attorney Fees: While the Association prevailed, the ALJ did not award attorney fees because the Respondent failed to provide legal authority for such a grant.

• Final Order: The petition was dismissed on October 25, 2007.

——————————————————————————–

Administrative Procedures for Vacating Hearings

Source documentation also clarifies the conditions under which the Office of Administrative Hearings may issue a “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing.” A matter may be removed from the docket and remanded for several specific reasons:

• Mootness: Occurs if the Respondent changes their position regarding the subject of the appeal.

• Voluntary Withdrawal: The party that originally requested the hearing chooses to retract their request.

• Resolution: The involved parties reach an independent settlement or agreement to dismiss the matter.

• Agency Action: The oversight agency may dismiss the matter or deem allegations admitted, subsequently issuing its own Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion

The administrative record indicates that the Office of Administrative Hearings maintains a strict adherence to the written CC&Rs of property associations. In the absence of an explicit prohibition within HOA Documents, the Architectural Control Committee retains broad discretionary authority to approve property modifications. For a member to successfully challenge an association’s decision, they must demonstrate a clear violation of the governing documents rather than a disagreement with a permitted approval.






Study Guide – 08F-H078003-BFS


Study Guide: Administrative Law and HOA Dispute Resolution

This study guide examines the administrative hearing process within the state of Arizona, specifically focusing on disputes between homeowners and property owner associations. The primary case study involves a petition regarding architectural variances and the interpretation of governing documents.

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions using two to three sentences based on the provided administrative documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific action by the Respondent did the Petitioner allege was a violation of the homeowners association (HOA) documents?

3. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) characterize the authority of the Architectural Control Committee regarding the subject property?

4. According to the Findings of Fact, why was the approval of the carport not considered a “variance”?

5. Which Arizona Revised Statute grants a member of a homeowners association the right to file a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?

6. What is the legal “standard of proof” required for a petitioner to succeed in this administrative forum?

7. Why was the Petitioner denied reimbursement for the $550.00 filing fee?

8. What was the ALJ’s ruling regarding the Respondent’s request for attorney fees and costs?

9. Based on the Findings of Fact, what evidence existed regarding the presence of other carports within the community?

10. According to the “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing” template, what is one reason a matter might be remanded and vacated from the docket?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Quiz Answer Key

1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS and what were their respective roles? The Petitioner was Delores Harrold, a member of the association who filed the complaint. The Respondent was the Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association, represented by attorney Scott Humble.

2. What specific action by the Respondent did the Petitioner allege was a violation of the homeowners association (HOA) documents? The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated its HOA documents by granting a neighbor a variance to construct a two-car carport at 11573 Turquoise Circle. She contended that the association did not have the authority to grant such a variance under its governing documents.

3. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) characterize the authority of the Architectural Control Committee regarding the subject property? The ALJ found that the HOA documents specifically give the Architectural Control Committee the authority to grant requests for additions such as carports. The committee had approved the homeowner’s request to build the carport on February 8, 2007.

4. According to the Findings of Fact, why was the approval of the carport not considered a “variance”? The approval was not a variance because the HOA documents do not prohibit the construction of approved carports for single-family residences with attached garages. Since no restriction was bypassed, the approval was a standard exercise of committee authority rather than a deviation from the rules.

5. Which Arizona Revised Statute grants a member of a homeowners association the right to file a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety? The right to file such a petition is permitted under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01. This statute ensures that such petitions are heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

6. What is the legal “standard of proof” required for a petitioner to succeed in this administrative forum? Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(A), the standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Petitioner carries the burden of proving their case to this standard.

7. Why was the Petitioner denied reimbursement for the $550.00 filing fee? Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), filing fees are typically reimbursed to the prevailing party. Because the ALJ concluded that the Respondent was the prevailing party and dismissed the petition, the Petitioner was not entitled to reimbursement.

8. What was the ALJ’s ruling regarding the Respondent’s request for attorney fees and costs? The ALJ did not grant attorney fees or costs to the Respondent. The ruling noted that the Respondent failed to present any legal authority that would allow for the granting of such fees in this specific matter.

9. Based on the Findings of Fact, what evidence existed regarding the presence of other carports within the community? The ALJ noted as a finding of fact that there are already existing carports at other residences within the Respondent’s jurisdiction. This suggests that the carport in question was not an unprecedented addition to the community.

10. According to the “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing” template, what is one reason a matter might be remanded and vacated from the docket? A matter may be vacated and remanded if it becomes moot because the Respondent changed its position concerning the subject of the appeal. Other reasons include the parties resolving the matter or the party requesting the hearing voluntarily withdrawing.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided documents to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Law: Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in the context of Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS. Why did the Petitioner fail to meet this burden despite her claims regarding the HOA documents?

2. Architectural Control and HOA Governance: Analyze the role of the Architectural Control Committee as described in the findings. How do the “HOA Documents” (CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation) define and limit the scope of the committee’s power?

3. The Concept of a “Variance” vs. “Approved Use”: Based on the ALJ’s decision, contrast a variance with an approved use of property. Explain how the absence of a prohibition in the CC&Rs affects the legal interpretation of an association’s actions.

4. Administrative Remedies and Costs: Examine the financial implications of filing a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. Detail the rules regarding the $550.00 filing fee and the conditions under which attorney fees may or may not be awarded.

5. Procedural Grounds for Vacating Hearings: Using the “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing” document, identify and explain the various circumstances that lead to the cancellation of a scheduled administrative hearing. Why is “mootness” considered a valid reason for remand?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

The Arizona Revised Statute that allows HOA members to file petitions against their association with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues legal conclusions and orders.

Architectural Control Committee

A specific body within an HOA authorized to review and approve or deny requests for property modifications or additions.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property owners within a specific development.

Findings of Fact

The determinations made by a judge regarding the events and circumstances of a case based on the evidence presented.

A legal status where a matter is no longer subject to determination by a court because the issues involved have been resolved or the circumstances have changed.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Delores Harrold).

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning that a claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Prevailing Party

The party in a lawsuit that wins on the main issues, often entitling them to certain reimbursements or legal remedies.

Remand

To send a case back to a lower court or the original agency for further action or because the hearing is no longer necessary.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association).

Vacate

To cancel or render void a scheduled hearing, order, or entry on a court docket.

Variance

An official permit or approval to depart from the established zoning or building regulations set forth in governing documents.






Blog Post – 08F-H078003-BFS


The Carport Conflict: 3 Essential Lessons from an Arizona HOA Legal Battle

1. Introduction: The Neighborhood Dispute You Never Saw Coming

Imagine the frustration of watching a construction crew break ground on a neighbor’s property for a project you are certain violates your community’s standards. This exact scenario sparked a legal showdown in the case of Harrold vs. Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association.

Delores Harrold, a resident of the community, filed a petition challenging the approval of a two-car carport at 11573 Turquoise Circle. She believed the association had overstepped by granting an unauthorized “variance” for the structure.

As a legal specialist, I find this case particularly instructive because it highlights the often-misunderstood boundaries of board authority. The outcome of Petition No. 08F-H078003-BFS offers a masterclass in why the specific language of your governing documents matters more than neighborhood expectations.

2. Takeaway 1: Silence in the CC&Rs Isn’t a Prohibition

A frequent misconception among homeowners is that if a structure isn’t explicitly mentioned as “allowed” in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), it must be prohibited. In this case, the petitioner argued that the association granted a “variance,” which is an exception to an established rule.

However, the judge found that the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) was well within its rights to approve the project because carports were never actually banned. In fact, Finding 11 noted that other carports already existed within the community, proving the structure was consistent with the neighborhood.

When the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are silent on a specific structure, the Architectural Control Committee often maintains broad authority to approve or deny requests. If the authority to approve exists and no prohibition is written, the approval is simply a standard exercise of power, not a “variance.”

3. Takeaway 2: The “Preponderance of Evidence” Bar

In administrative hearings, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner under A.A.C. R2-19-119(B). To win, a homeowner must meet the Preponderance of Evidence standard as defined in A.A.C. R2-19-119(A).

This means the petitioner must prove it is “more likely than not” that a violation occurred. Delores Harrold failed this test largely because of a mismatch in facts; she alleged a violation occurred on June 18, 2007, but the Architectural Control Committee had already formally approved the carport months earlier on February 8, 2007.

To sustain the burden of proof in an HOA dispute, a petitioner must:

• Identify the specific provision in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or HOA Documents that was allegedly violated.

• Provide credible evidence that a violation actually occurred on or about the specific date alleged in the petition.

• Demonstrate that the action taken (such as an approval) was outside the authority granted to the Architectural Control Committee.

4. Takeaway 3: The Financial Risk of “Losing”

Homeowners should view administrative petitions as a “pay-to-play” legal reality. To initiate her case, the petitioner had to pay a $550.00 filing fee to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), only the “prevailing party” is entitled to have this filing fee reimbursed. Because the judge dismissed the petition, the homeowner was not eligible to get her money back, resulting in a total loss of the filing costs.

What the Prevailing Party Wins:

• A formal Administrative Law Judge Decision and Order in their favor.

• The right to seek reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A).

What the Losing Party Forfeits:

• The $550.00 filing fee paid to the Department.

• The legal standing of their claim, resulting in a dismissal of the petition.

5. Conclusion: A Final Thought on Community Governance

The dismissal of Petition No. 08F-H078003-BFS underscores a vital reality: the Architectural Control Committee holds the power to shape the community as long as they stay within the bounds of the HOA Documents. If the rules do not explicitly forbid a structure, the committee’s approval is usually final.

Homeowners must realize that their personal aesthetic preferences do not carry the weight of law. Before you challenge a neighbor’s renovation, you must verify if your Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) actually prohibit the structure or if you are simply assuming a rule exists where there is only silence.

Do you truly know what your HOA’s rules allow—or are you simply assuming the rules match your own expectations?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Delores Harrold (petitioner)
    Appeared personally

Respondent Side

  • Scott Humble (attorney)
    Turley, Swan & Childers, P.C.
    Represented Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association
  • Joseph B. Swan, Jr. (attorney)
    Turley, Swan & Childers, P.C.
    Listed in distribution list with Scott Humble

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Copy mailed to
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Attn line for Robert Barger

Kressel, Win -v- Cachet Grayhawk Condominuim

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-HO780002-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2007-10-09
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Win Kressel Counsel —
Respondent Cachet Grayhawk Condominium Counsel Jeffrey B. Corben

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1227; Declaration Sections 4.13 and 6.3

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA properly classified the Petitioner's sister as a resident who is ineligible for guest parking. The ALJ further ruled that the Board had the authority to adopt the parking rules without a membership vote and that the rules were not unreasonable.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the Declaration or statutes; the sister was a resident not entitled to guest parking privileges.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of guest parking for resident sister and validity of parking rules

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the Declaration and statutes by denying his sister (a resident) use of guest parking and by adopting parking rules without a unit owner vote.

Orders: No action required of the Association; Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1227
  • Declaration Section 4.13
  • Declaration Section 6.3
  • Declaration Section 4.25
  • Declaration Section 13.15

Decision Documents

08F-HO780002-BFS Decision – 178155.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:17 (74.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-HO780002-BFS


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kressel v. Cachet Grayhawk Condominium

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the findings and conclusions of Law Case No. 08F-HO780002-BFS, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal. The dispute involved Petitioner Dr. Win Kressel and Respondent Cachet Grayhawk Condominium regarding the enforcement of parking restrictions.

The central issue was whether the Association’s refusal to permit the Petitioner’s sister to use guest parking or park in his driveway violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (Declaration), the Association’s Parking Rules, or Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1227. The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner’s sister qualified as a “resident” rather than a “guest” under the established rules, thereby disqualifying her from guest parking privileges. Furthermore, the ALJ ruled that the Board acted within its authority to adopt parking rules and that the Petitioner failed to establish any unreasonable discrimination or statutory violations.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Category

Details

Case Number

08F-HO780002-BFS

Petitioner

Dr. Win Kressel

Respondent

Cachet Grayhawk Condominium; Rossmar & Graham Management Company

Hearing Date

October 9, 2007

Administrative Law Judge

Lewis D. Kowal

——————————————————————————–

Core Themes and Legal Analysis

1. Classification of Residency and Parking Eligibility

The dispute hinged on the definition of a “resident” versus a “guest” as defined by the Association’s Parking Rules and the Declaration.

• Petitioner’s Circumstances: Dr. Kressel’s sister moved into his unit in early summer 2007 with the intent to stay indefinitely.

• Rule Definitions:

◦ Residents: Defined as anyone occupying a unit on a full-time or part-time basis.

◦ Guests/Visitors: Defined as individuals visiting for up to 60 days.

• ALJ Finding: Because the Petitioner’s sister was a family member and an occupant of the unit, she fell under the definition of a “resident.” Consequently, under Section 4.13 of the Declaration, she was prohibited from using guest parking areas.

2. Authority of the Board to Adopt Rules

The Petitioner argued that the Parking Rules adopted in 2004 constituted an unauthorized amendment to the Declaration that should have required a vote from all unit owners per A.R.S. § 33-1227.

• Declaration Section 6.3: Grants the Board the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations governing the use of any area by owners, family, or invitees.

• ALJ Finding: The 2004 rules were not an amendment to the Declaration but were rules adopted by a Board vote as permitted by the Declaration. The Petitioner failed to provide legal authority to support the claim that the rules were invalid or improperly adopted.

3. Discrimination and Unreasonableness Claims

The Petitioner contended that the rules were unreasonable and discriminatory because they restricted him to a single parking space, which he argued could force him to move if his household size increased (e.g., through marriage).

• The Variance Provision: Section 4.25 of the Declaration allows for variances. Testimony from the Association President, James Friebacher, revealed that he and five other owners had received variances to park second vehicles in their driveways.

• ALJ Finding: The Petitioner had never applied for a variance under Section 4.25. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish a legal standard or factual evidence showing the rules were unreasonable under the circumstances.

——————————————————————————–

Evidence and Key Findings of Fact

The following evidence was established during the hearing:

• Temporary Accommodations: The Association had previously granted the Petitioner “unusual exceptions” for his sister’s parking. This included a guest parking approval through July 1, 2007, which was later extended to September 1, 2007, with the stipulation that the vehicle could not be parked in the driveway.

• Failure to Request Extension: The Petitioner did not file a request with the Association to extend the guest parking exception beyond the September 1, 2007 deadline.

• Vehicle Limitations: Section 4.13 of the Declaration permits guest parking in driveways only for vehicles not exceeding 7 feet in height and 18 feet in length. However, this applies strictly to guests; family members and occupants are explicitly excluded from guest parking privileges.

——————————————————————————–

Final Decision and Order

Dismissal of Petition

The ALJ determined that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the Declaration or A.R.S. § 33-1227.

• Conclusion: The Association’s actions were consistent with the Declaration and Parking Rules.

• Order: The Petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Association.

Costs and Attorney Fees

The Association requested an award for costs and attorney fees under Section 13.15 of the Declaration.

• ALJ Ruling: The request was denied. The ALJ found that Section 13.15 did not provide for the recovery of costs and fees for defending against this specific type of administrative action.

——————————————————————————–

Notable Quotes






Study Guide – 08F-HO780002-BFS


Administrative Law Judge Decision Study Guide: Kressel v. Cachet Grayhawk Condominium

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal dispute between Dr. Win Kressel and the Cachet Grayhawk Condominium Association regarding parking regulations and the interpretation of the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided administrative decision.

1. What was the primary complaint filed by Dr. Win Kressel against the Association?

2. How do the Association’s Parking Rules distinguish between a “resident” and a “visitor/guest”?

3. What specific parking restrictions are placed on unit owners and their family members under Section 4.13 of the Declaration?

4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that Petitioner’s sister was a resident rather than a guest?

5. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s request for guest parking in early 2007?

6. What argument did the Petitioner make regarding the adoption of Parking Rules and A.R.S. § 33-1227?

7. How did the ALJ rule on the Petitioner’s claim that the Parking Rules were an “amendment” to the Declaration?

8. What evidence was provided regarding the possibility of obtaining a “variance” for parking?

9. On what grounds did the ALJ deny the Association’s request for attorney fees and costs?

10. What is the Board’s authority regarding rule-making as defined in Section 6.3 of the Declaration?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. What was the primary complaint filed by Dr. Win Kressel against the Association? Dr. Win Kressel alleged that the Association violated the Declaration and state law by refusing to allow his sister to park in his driveway or providing her with guest parking. He specifically contended that the Association’s actions violated Sections 4.13 and 6.3 of the Declaration and A.R.S. § 33-1227.

2. How do the Association’s Parking Rules distinguish between a “resident” and a “visitor/guest”? A resident is defined as anyone who occupies a unit on a full-time or part-time basis, excluding visitors or guests. Visitors and guests are defined as individuals visiting for a period of up to 60 days.

3. What specific parking restrictions are placed on unit owners and their family members under Section 4.13 of the Declaration? Unit owners are prohibited from parking automobiles anywhere on the condominium property except in their assigned garages. Furthermore, owners, their family members, and occupants are explicitly barred from using guest parking areas.

4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that Petitioner’s sister was a resident rather than a guest? The ALJ noted that the Petitioner’s sister had moved into the unit and that the Petitioner testified she could stay as long as she wished. Because she occupied the unit indefinitely, she met the definition of a resident and therefore did not qualify for guest parking privileges.

5. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s request for guest parking in early 2007? The Association initially granted an “unusual exception” by approving guest parking for the sister through July 1, 2007, and later extended it to September 1, 2007. However, they stipulated that the vehicle could not be parked in the driveway and stated that no further extensions would be granted beyond that date.

6. What argument did the Petitioner make regarding the adoption of Parking Rules and A.R.S. § 33-1227? The Petitioner argued that the Parking Rules adopted by the Board in 2004 actually constituted an amendment to the Declaration. He contended that under A.R.S. § 33-1227, such an amendment required a formal vote of the unit owners rather than a simple Board vote.

7. How did the ALJ rule on the Petitioner’s claim that the Parking Rules were an “amendment” to the Declaration? The ALJ rejected this claim, stating that the Petitioner’s characterization was in error. The judge found that there was no amendment to the Declaration; rather, the Board had exercised its permitted authority under the Declaration to adopt rules.

8. What evidence was provided regarding the possibility of obtaining a “variance” for parking? James Friebacher, the Board President, testified that Section 4.25 of the Declaration allows residents to apply for a variance, which he himself had successfully done to park a second vehicle in his driveway. However, it was established that the Petitioner had never actually applied to the Board for such a variance.

9. On what grounds did the ALJ deny the Association’s request for attorney fees and costs? The ALJ denied the request because Section 13.15 of the Declaration, which the Association cited as the basis for the award, did not contain provisions allowing the Association to recover costs for defending this specific type of action.

10. What is the Board’s authority regarding rule-making as defined in Section 6.3 of the Declaration? Section 6.3 grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations that govern the use of any area by owners, families, invitees, or lessees. These rules are valid as long as they do not “unreasonably discriminate” among the unit owners.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the facts and legal conclusions from the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Resident vs. Guest Distinction: Analyze how the definition of “occupancy” influenced the outcome of this case. How did the Petitioner’s own testimony regarding his sister’s stay undermine his legal position under the Association’s Parking Rules?

2. Board Authority and Rule-Making: Discuss the legal difference between amending a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and adopting “rules and regulations” as seen in this case. Why is this distinction vital for HOA governance?

3. The Burden of Proof: Explain the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied to the Petitioner’s claims. In what specific ways did the Petitioner fail to meet this evidentiary standard?

4. The Principle of Unreasonable Discrimination: Section 6.3 prohibits rules that “unreasonably discriminate” among owners. Evaluate the Petitioner’s claim of discrimination in light of the fact that the Board President held a parking variance while the Petitioner did not.

5. Contractual Interpretation of Fees: Analyze the ALJ’s decision regarding the Association’s request for legal fees. Why is the specific language of a Declaration’s “costs and fees” provision (such as Section 13.15) critical in administrative hearings?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1227

An Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner regarding the requirements for amending a condominium declaration.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) who hears evidence and issues a decision in an administrative hearing.

Architectural Committee

A specific body within the Association that met to review and initially approve temporary parking exceptions for the Petitioner.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal document that governs the use of the property and the powers of the Association.

Guest/Visitor

Defined by the Association’s rules as an individual visiting a resident for a period not exceeding 60 days.

Petition

The formal written request or complaint filed by the Petitioner to initiate the legal process with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The legal standard of proof required in this civil/administrative matter, meaning the claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Resident

Any person who occupies a unit on a full-time or part-time basis; residents are prohibited from using guest parking under the Association’s rules.

Section 4.13

The specific provision of the Declaration prohibiting owners from parking anywhere except assigned garages and regulating guest driveway use.

Section 4.25

The provision of the Declaration that allows for the granting of a “variance” or exception to the established rules.

Section 6.3

The provision of the Declaration granting the Board authority to adopt or repeal rules governing the use of the community.

Variance

A formal exception to a rule or regulation, granted by the Board under specific circumstances (e.g., allowing a second vehicle in a driveway).






Blog Post – 08F-HO780002-BFS


When Family Becomes a Resident: 4 Surprising Truths About HOA Parking Wars

1. Introduction: The Unforeseen Conflict of a “Full House”

It is a common and often generous scenario: a family member needs a place to stay, and you have the space to accommodate them. However, within the structured legal environment of a Condominium Association, this act of hospitality can trigger a complex battle over asphalt and curb space. For Dr. Win Kressel, what began as a family arrangement devolved into a formal dispute before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that would redefine his understanding of “home.”

The case of Win Kressel vs. Cachet Grayhawk Condominium serves as a critical case study for any homeowner. The conflict centered on whether a family member is legally a “guest” or a “resident”—a distinction that carries heavy consequences for where a vehicle may be parked. By examining the ALJ’s findings, we can uncover the surprising legal realities that govern modern community living.

2. Takeaway 1: Your Sister Isn’t a “Guest” (Legally Speaking)

Under many Association Parking Rules, the transition from “guest” to “resident” is governed by intent and occupancy rather than just a calendar. In the Cachet Grayhawk case, the rules defined a resident as anyone who occupies a unit on a full or part-time basis. While “guests” were defined as those visiting for up to 60 days, the ALJ focused on the Petitioner’s own testimony to determine the sister’s status.

In a move of legal irony, Dr. Kressel’s generous testimony—stating his sister resided in his unit and could stay “as long as she wished”—was the primary evidence used to strip her of guest status. This distinction is vital due to Section 4.13 of the Declaration. Under this provision, guests are granted the privilege of parking in driveways. Residents, however, are strictly relegated to the garages assigned to the unit and are barred from guest parking areas.

By declaring her an occupant with an indefinite stay, Kressel inadvertently legally disqualified her from using the driveway. As the Administrative Law Judge noted:

3. Takeaway 2: The Board’s Pen is Mightier Than the Vote

A common misconception among homeowners is that any rule affecting property rights requires a community-wide vote. Dr. Kressel challenged the Parking Rules by citing A.R.S. § 33-1227, arguing that such regulations constituted an “amendment” to the Declaration that required a membership vote.

The legal reality is found in Section 6.3 of the Declaration. This provision grants the Board the specific authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules governing the use of the property without a full vote of unit owners. The ALJ clarified that as long as the Board acts within this administrative authority and the rules do not “unreasonably discriminate” among owners, they are legally binding. The court found that Dr. Kressel failed to establish that the Board’s adoption of these standards was an error; they were valid rules, not invalid amendments.

4. Takeaway 3: The “Variance” Loophole You’re Probably Missing

One of the most revealing moments of the hearing involved the testimony of Board President James Friebacher. It was revealed that Mr. Friebacher held a variance under Section 4.25 of the Declaration, allowing him to park a second vehicle in his driveway—a privilege denied to Dr. Kressel’s sister.

While this might appear to be favoritism at first glance, the “Legal Analyst” must look at the timeline. The evidence showed that Mr. Friebacher was one of six owners who received such a variance in 2004, and crucially, he was not a member of the Board when he applied. The Petitioner’s failure was not necessarily a victim of corruption, but a failure to navigate the proper “administrative channel.” Mr. Friebacher testified that Dr. Kressel had never actually applied for a variance under Section 4.25. The lesson is clear: you cannot successfully argue a rule is being unfairly applied if you have not first utilized the procedural remedies available to you.

5. Takeaway 4: Guest Parking is a Temporary Privilege, Not a Backup Plan

Guest parking is often a tiered privilege rather than a permanent right. The Cachet Grayhawk rules established a clear hierarchy:

• Up to 15 days: Guests may park in designated areas without Board approval.

• 15 to 60 days: Mandatory Board approval is required.

• Beyond 60 days: The occupant is generally reclassified as a resident.

The Association had initially granted Dr. Kressel an “unusual exception” due to “extraordinary circumstances,” allowing his sister to use guest parking through September 1, 2007. However, the Association was legally entitled to set a hard expiration date on this grace period. The court affirmed that “extraordinary circumstances” do not create a permanent right to bypass the Declaration. When the deadline passed, the privilege evaporated, and the Association was under no legal obligation to extend it.

6. Conclusion: The Fine Print of Modern Living

The Kressel dispute highlights a harsh reality: in a Condominium Association, personal logic and family ties are secondary to the specific definitions within the CC&Rs. Dr. Kressel argued that these rules were “unreasonable,” claiming that if he were to marry or start a family, the single parking space restriction would force him to move.

The Judge was unmoved by this appeal to “future logic,” finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” required to prove the rules were discriminatory or unreasonable. The Board’s need to set community standards outweighed the Petitioner’s personal lifestyle choices.

Before you invite a loved one to move in, you must look past the guest room and toward the governing documents. If your lifestyle changes tomorrow, do you know which section of your HOA agreement might suddenly turn your driveway into a legal battlefield?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Win Kressel (Petitioner)
    Dr. Win Kressel represented himself

Respondent Side

  • Jeffrey B. Corben (Respondent Attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan
    Representing Cachet Grayhawk Condominium
  • James Friebacher (witness)
    Cachet Grayhawk Condominium
    President of the Association and Board member

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution
  • Joyce Kesterman (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution

Lamb, Dennis W. vs. Bellasera Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H078004-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2007-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis W. Lamb Counsel —
Respondent Bellasera Community Association Counsel Jason E. Smith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Association acknowledged the Petitioner was the prevailing party regarding the election dispute and agreed to reimburse the filing fee. The ALJ ordered the reimbursement and general statutory compliance.

Key Issues & Findings

Election/Appointment of Directors

Petitioner alleged the Association violated statutes by electing or appointing David Redman and Dennis Carson to the Board of Directors at the annual meeting.

Orders: Association must reimburse Petitioner's $550.00 filing fee within 30 days and abide by all applicable statutes under A.R.S. Title 33.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(2)

Decision Documents

08F-H078004-BFS Decision – 178187.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:21:00 (53.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H078004-BFS


Analysis of Case No. 08F-H078004-BFS: Lamb v. Bellasera Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative legal proceedings and final decision in the matter of Dennis W. Lamb v. Bellasera Community Association. The case, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on October 16, 2007, centered on allegations of statutory violations regarding the election or appointment of members to the Association’s Board of Directors. The Association ultimately acknowledged the Petitioner as the prevailing party, resulting in a formal order for the reimbursement of legal filing fees and a mandate for the Association to maintain strict compliance with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 33 moving forward.

Case Overview

The dispute was adjudicated within the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety.

Key Parties

• Petitioner: Dennis W. Lamb, appearing on his own behalf.

• Respondent: Bellasera Community Association, represented by Jason E. Smith, Esq. of Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Wood, PLC.

• Presiding Official: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal.

Core Allegations and Statutory Basis

The Petitioner alleged that the Bellasera Community Association violated specific provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes during its annual meeting on or about April 15, 2007.

Nature of the Violation

The allegations focused on the process used to seat two individuals on the Association’s Board of Directors:

• David Redman

• Dennis Carson

The Petitioner argued that the election or appointment of these individuals failed to comply with legal requirements.

Statutory Citations

The petition cited violations of the following sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes:

• A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)

• A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(2)

These statutes generally govern the procedures for voting and meetings within planned communities.

Findings and Resolution

Upon review of the filing and the circumstances of the case, the Association did not contest the Petitioner’s claims to the extent that it acknowledged his status as the prevailing party.

Stipulations

The parties entered into a formal stipulation regarding the following:

1. Party Designation: The parties agreed that “Bellasera Community Association” was the correct and only named respondent.

2. Prevailing Party Status: The Association acknowledged that Dennis W. Lamb was the prevailing party in the matter.

3. Financial Reimbursement: The Association agreed to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.

Final Administrative Order

On October 16, 2007, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued a final decision which included the following mandates:

Requirement

Timeline/Condition

Filing Fee Reimbursement

The Association must pay the Petitioner $550.00 within 30 days of the Order.

Statutory Compliance

The Association is ordered to “abide by and obey all applicable statutes under A.R.S., Title 33.”

This decision was transmitted to the Director of the Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety, and was designated as a final agency action by statute.






Study Guide – 08F-H078004-BFS


Study Guide: Lamb v. Bellasera Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case Dennis W. Lamb v. Bellasera Community Association (Case No. 08F-H078004-BFS). The document explores the legal proceedings, the specific statutory violations addressed, and the final judicial orders issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions using two to three sentences based on the provided source text.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing?

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) were allegedly violated by the Respondent?

3. What specific event on April 15, 2007, led to the filing of the petition?

4. Who were the two individuals whose appointment or election to the Board of Directors was contested?

5. With which state department did the Petitioner originally file his petition?

6. What was the final determination regarding which party “prevailed” in this matter?

7. What financial restitution was ordered by the Administrative Law Judge?

8. What was the agreed-upon timeframe for the Association to complete the ordered reimbursement?

9. What amendment was made to the case caption during the proceedings?

10. Besides financial reimbursement, what general legal mandate did the judge issue to the Association?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The parties involved were Dennis W. Lamb, acting as the Petitioner on his own behalf, and the Bellasera Community Association, acting as the Respondent. The Association was represented by legal counsel Jason E. Smith of Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Wood, PLC.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1812(A)(1) and (2). These statutes relate to the internal governance and legal obligations of community associations in Arizona.

3. The petition was triggered by the Association’s annual meeting held on April 15, 2007. During this meeting, the Association elected or appointed specific individuals to its Board of Directors in a manner the Petitioner contested.

4. The dispute centered on the election or appointment of David Redman and Dennis Carson. The Petitioner alleged that their placement on the Association’s Board of Directors violated specific sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

5. The Petitioner filed his petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety. The matter was subsequently heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings under Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal.

6. The Association acknowledged that Dennis W. Lamb was the prevailing party in the dispute. This acknowledgment was formalized in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within the judge’s decision.

7. The Administrative Law Judge ordered the Association to reimburse the Petitioner for his filing fee. The total amount of the reimbursement was set at $550.00.

8. The parties stipulated that the reimbursement must be paid within a specific window of time. The Association was ordered to provide the $550.00 to the Petitioner within 30 days of the date the Order was entered.

9. The parties stipulated to an amendment of the case caption to list only the Bellasera Community Association as the named respondent. This change was reflected in the final Administrative Law Judge Decision.

10. The Judge issued a formal order requiring the Association to abide by and obey all applicable statutes under A.R.S., Title 33. This serves as a mandate for future statutory compliance in Association operations.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the details from the case to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Role of Administrative Oversight: Analyze the role of the Arizona Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety and the Office of Administrative Hearings in resolving disputes between homeowners and community associations. Use the Lamb v. Bellasera case to illustrate how these entities provide a venue for statutory enforcement.

2. Statutory Compliance in Governance: Discuss the importance of adhering to A.R.S. Title 33 in the context of community association board elections. Based on the case findings, evaluate why strict adherence to appointment and election procedures is necessary for maintaining legal association governance.

3. The Significance of Prevailing Party Status: Explore the legal and financial implications of being designated the “prevailing party” in an administrative hearing. How does this designation affect the distribution of costs, such as filing fees, and what does it signify regarding the validity of the original petition?

4. Procedural Stipulations: Examine the role of stipulations between parties in an administrative law setting. Discuss how the agreements between Lamb and the Bellasera Community Association regarding the respondent’s name and the reimbursement timeline streamlined the final judicial order.

5. Judicial Remedies and Future Conduct: Evaluate the effectiveness of the remedies provided in this case. Beyond the immediate financial reimbursement, analyze the potential impact of a judicial order that explicitly mandates a respondent to “abide by and obey all applicable statutes” in the future.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. Title 33

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs property and community associations.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) who hears evidence and issues decisions in disputes involving government agencies.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the Bellasera Community Association responsible for making organizational decisions and appointments.

Caption

The heading of a legal document that identifies the parties, the court or office, and the case number; amended in this case to reflect only one respondent.

Filing Fee

The $550.00 cost incurred by the Petitioner to initiate the legal action, which the Respondent was eventually ordered to reimburse.

Final Agency Action

The definitive decision made by an administrative body that concludes a matter; here, the ALJ decision became final by statute.

Findings of Fact

The specific factual determinations made by the judge regarding what occurred, such as the date of the meeting and the names of the appointees.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or administrative proceeding (Dennis W. Lamb).

Prevailing Party

The person or entity that “wins” the case or achieves the primary goal of their legal action, entitling them to certain reimbursements.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed (Bellasera Community Association).

Stipulation

A formal agreement or bargain made between opposing parties during legal proceedings.






Blog Post – 08F-H078004-BFS


The $550 Lesson: How One Homeowner Held His HOA Accountable

In the world of community governance, homeowners often feel like they are fighting a losing battle against a Board of Directors backed by a blank check for legal fees. The power imbalance is palpable: residents are expected to follow every minor CC&R rule, while Boards sometimes treat state laws as optional “guidelines.”

However, the case of Dennis W. Lamb vs. Bellasera Community Association serves as a vital playbook for any resident looking to restore the balance of power. This wasn’t just a neighborhood dispute; it was a David-vs-Goliath victory that proves even a “small” procedural error can have significant legal consequences. If you’ve ever felt the sting of a Board overstepping its bounds, bookmark this case—it proves that accountability isn’t just possible; it’s mandated.

The Law Isn’t a Suggestion: Decoding A.R.S. Title 33

The core of Mr. Lamb’s challenge rested on a fundamental pillar of Arizona HOA law: A.R.S. §§ 33-1812(A)(1) and (2). While statutory numbers can seem dry, these specific laws are the lifeblood of community democracy. They govern how ballots and proxies are handled during elections.

In this case, the Bellasera Community Association attempted to elect or appoint two directors, David Redman and Dennis Carson, during the April 2007 annual meeting. By violating these statutes, the Board effectively bypassed the legal requirements for how votes must be cast and counted. Whether through improper proxy use or a failure to follow ballot protocols, the message from the court was clear: Boards cannot “appoint” their way around the legislative framework.

To ensure this lesson stuck, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued a directive that every homeowner should keep in their back pocket:

The Power of the “Stipulation” and the Prevailing Party Status

One of the most tactical takeaways from this case is how it ended. The Association didn’t fight to a bitter, multi-year conclusion. Instead, they stipulated to the facts. In legal terms, the Association essentially surrendered, acknowledging that Mr. Lamb was the “prevailing party.”

For a homeowner, the “prevailing party” designation is a legal scarlet letter for the Board. It is a formal admission that the Association was in the wrong. This led to a direct financial hit for the Association: they were ordered to reimburse Mr. Lamb his $550.00 filing fee within 30 days.

While $550 might seem like a drop in the bucket for a large association’s budget, the precedent is priceless. When a Board is forced to cut a check to a resident they tried to steamroll, it sends a shockwave through the community. It proves that procedural “shortcuts” are actually expensive mistakes.

David vs. Goliath: Taking the Board to Task Without a Lawyer

Perhaps the most empowering aspect of Lamb vs. Bellasera is how the battle was fought. Mr. Lamb did not hire a high-priced law firm. He represented himself—appearing “on his own behalf”—against the Association’s professional counsel, Jason E. Smith, Esq.

Mr. Lamb navigated the system by filing his petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety. This agency provides a structured, accessible path for residents to challenge corporate-style boards through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

The outcome demonstrates a critical truth for the modern homeowner: the legal system provides a venue where facts outweigh a Board’s legal budget. You don’t need a JD to demand that your Board follows the law; you just need the persistence to hold them to the statutes already on the books.

Conclusion: A Precedent for Accountability

The case of Dennis W. Lamb is a stark reminder that HOA governance is a serious legal responsibility, not a community volunteer role where the rules are negotiable. When Boards treat statutory requirements like A.R.S. Title 33 as “red tape” to be cut, they leave themselves vulnerable to the residents they serve.

As homeowners, we must ask ourselves: How would our neighborhoods change if every Board knew their residents were watching the ballots as closely as the budget? The balance of power in modern associations only tips toward the resident when we stop asking for fairness and start demanding statutory compliance. Accountability is within your reach—sometimes, it just costs the Board $550 to learn that lesson.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dennis W. Lamb (Petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Jason E. Smith (Attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Attorney for Bellasera Community Association,
  • David Redman (Board Member)
    Bellasera Community Association
    Elected or appointed to Board of Directors
  • Dennis Carson (Board Member)
    Bellasera Community Association
    Elected or appointed to Board of Directors

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge,
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Director receiving copy of decision
  • Joyce Kesterman (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy

Brown, William M. vs. Terravita Community Association, Inc.,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 07F-H067035-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2007-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Michael K. Carroll
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William M. Brown Counsel —
Respondent Terravita Community Association, Inc. Counsel Kristina L. Pywowarczuk, Lynn M. Krupnik

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, determining that the HOA's delegate voting system for Board elections constituted a proxy system prohibited by A.R.S. § 33-1812(A). The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute and reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Prohibition against proxy voting (Delegate System)

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent's system of electing Board members via neighborhood 'voting delegates' violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A), which prohibits votes cast pursuant to a proxy. The ALJ found that the delegate system effectively removed voting rights from individual members and functioned as a proxy, violating the statute.

Orders: Respondent ordered to abide by A.R.S. § 33-1812(A); Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $550 filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3101
  • A.R.S. § 10-3724

Decision Documents

07F-H067035-BFS Decision – 175608.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:41 (93.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 07F-H067035-BFS


Briefing Document: Legal Implications of Delegate Voting in Planned Communities (Brown v. Terravita)

Executive Summary

The following document provides a synthesis of the legal findings in the case of William M. Brown vs. Terravita Community Association, Inc. (No. 07F-H067035-BFS). The central conflict of the case was whether a “delegate” system of representative governance in a homeowners’ association (HOA) violates Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §33-1812(A), which prohibits the use of proxy voting.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Terravita’s delegate system functioned as a proxy by substituting the discretion of a few representatives for the direct voting rights of the membership. The ruling established that such systems circumvent legislative intent to minimize fraud and maximize member participation, effectively disenfranchising the vast majority of association members. The Respondent was ordered to cease these practices and align with state statutes requiring direct member voting via in-person or absentee ballots.

——————————————————————————–

Background and Organizational Structure

Terravita Community Association is a planned community comprised of 1,380 homes and residential lots. Its governance is dictated by its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“Declaration”), Articles of Incorporation, and By-Laws.

The Neighborhood Delegate System

The Association’s governing documents established a tiered voting structure:

• Geographic Divisions: The community is divided into 22 distinct neighborhoods.

• Election of Delegates: Each neighborhood elects one “voting delegate” and one “alternate voting delegate” annually.

• Member Rights: Association members (lot owners) are entitled to one vote per lot owned, but their voting rights are restricted to the selection of these delegates.

• Delegate Discretion: Once elected, delegates cast votes in all elections—including those for the Board of Directors—as they “deem appropriate in [their] sole discretion.”

• Exceptions to Discretion: Delegates only lose this unlimited discretion in specific instances:

1. Instituting litigation.

2. Imposing Special Assessments beyond Declaration limits.

3. Amending the Declaration.

4. Terminating a management agent.

——————————————————————————–

Core Legal Dispute

The Petitioner, William M. Brown, challenged a May 15, 2007, Board election where 18 voting delegates (representing 1,094 members) elected three new Board members. The Petitioner alleged this system violated A.R.S. §33-1812(A).

The Relevant Statute

A.R.S. §33-1812(A) states:

Arguments Presented

Argument Category

Respondent (Terravita) Position

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Position

Definition of Proxy

Delegates are a form of “corporate governance”; proxies are merely a form of “vote delivery.”

A proxy is “one who is authorized to act as a substitute for another.” Delegates are, by definition, substitutes.

Member Rights

Members have no right to vote for the Board under the Declaration; therefore, no right is being “proxied.”

This logic would allow associations to circumvent the law by simply removing all member voting rights.

Risk of Abuse

Delegate systems avoid the fraud (forgery) risks associated with traditional proxies.

Delegate systems create more potential for abuse by disenfranchising members and allowing a small group to control the association.

Contractual Rights

Prohibiting delegates impairs the contractual rights of the Association and its members.

An association is its members; expanding member participation rights does not compromise the interests of the association.

——————————————————————————–

Detailed Judicial Analysis

The Disenfranchisement Factor

The ALJ found that the delegate system “effectively disenfranchises” almost all members. In the May 2007 election, only 18 out of 1,380 members had a direct say in the Board’s composition.

Under the Bylaws:

• As few as 12 delegates can elect a Board member.

• A candidate opposed by 1,367 members could still be elected if they secure the support of just 12 delegates.

• Political reality dictates a candidate only needs to convince 12 people rather than the broad membership.

Comparison of Traditional Proxies vs. Delegates

The ALJ identified that the delegate system is actually more restrictive than traditional proxy voting, which the legislature sought to ban:

1. Revocability: Traditional proxies are revoked if a member appears at an election or executes a written revocation.

2. Permanent Delegation: Under Terravita’s system, members cannot exercise individual preferences or revoke their vote once a delegate is elected for their one-year term (except through a majority removal petition).

3. Lack of Accountability: Delegates are explicitly not required to vote in accordance with the wishes of the neighborhood majority.

“Distinction Without a Difference”

The Court dismissed the Respondent’s argument that delegates were not proxies because they were the only ones with the “right” to vote. The ALJ noted that this would mean the prohibition against proxies could be bypassed by transferring the voting rights of 1,380 members to a handful of individuals. The ALJ termed the Respondent’s attempts to differentiate the two a “classic ‘distinction without a difference.'”

——————————————————————————–

Final Decision and Orders

The Office of Administrative Hearings determined that the use of voting delegates violated the clear language and intent of A.R.S. §33-1812(A).

The Order:

• Compliance: Terravita Community Association, Inc. is ordered to abide by A.R.S. §33-1812(A) and cease casting votes pursuant to a proxy (delegate system).

• Restitution: The Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner for the filing fee of $550.

• Finality: This order is the final administrative decision and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.






Study Guide – 07F-H067035-BFS


Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Community Association, Inc.

This study guide reviews the administrative law case William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Association, Inc. (No. 07F-H067035-BFS). The case centers on the legality of “delegate” voting systems in Arizona homeowners’ associations and whether such systems violate statutory prohibitions against proxy voting.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.

1. What was the primary allegation made by the Petitioner in his challenge against the Terravita Community Association?

2. How is the Terravita Community Association geographically and politically structured for the purpose of elections?

3. According to the Association’s Declaration, what degree of discretion does a “voting delegate” have when casting a vote?

4. What are the few specific exceptions where a delegate’s discretion is limited under the Declaration?

5. What does Arizona Revised Statutes §33-1812(A) state regarding the use of proxies in community associations?

6. How did the Respondent (Terravita) distinguish between “proxies” and “delegates” in its legal argument?

7. How does the revocation of a proxy in a non-profit corporation differ from the removal of a delegate in the Terravita system?

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) definition of a “proxy,” and how did it apply to delegates?

9. According to the ALJ’s analysis, how many people could effectively control the outcome of a Board election under the delegate system?

10. What was the final ruling and order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that three members of the Respondent’s Board of Directors were elected using a proxy system that violated A.R.S. §33-1812. He specifically challenged the neighborhood voting delegate system as being a prohibited proxy vote.

2. The Association consists of 1,380 residential lots divided into 22 distinct geographic neighborhoods. Each neighborhood elects one “voting delegate” and one “alternate voting delegate” to represent the members of that neighborhood in Board elections.

3. Once elected, a voting delegate has the authority to cast votes in all elections as they “deem appropriate in [their] sole discretion.” This means they are not legally obligated to vote according to the wishes or interests of the majority of owners in their neighborhood.

4. The Declaration limits delegate discretion only during votes to institute litigation, impose certain Special Assessments, amend the Declaration, or terminate a management agent. For standard Board elections, the delegate maintains full discretionary power.

5. The statute mandates that after the period of declarant control ends, votes allocated to a unit may not be cast via proxy. It requires associations to allow for votes to be cast in person, by absentee ballot, or through other forms of delivery.

6. The Respondent argued that a proxy is a “form of vote delivery” used by a person who holds the right to vote, whereas a delegate is a “form of corporate governance.” They claimed that since individual members have no right to vote for the Board under their documents, no proxy was being used.

7. In non-profit corporations, a proxy is revoked if the member appears at the election or executes a written revocation. In Terravita’s delegate system, members cannot exercise individual preferences or revoke the delegate’s authority for a specific vote once the delegate is elected for their one-year term.

8. The ALJ used Black’s Law Dictionary to define a proxy as “one who is authorized to act as a substitute for another.” The ALJ concluded that because delegates are authorized to act as substitutes for members regarding association votes, they are, by definition, proxies.

9. The ALJ noted that because there are only 22 delegates, as few as 12 individuals could elect a Board member. This system could theoretically allow 12 delegates to override the opposition of the other 1,367 members of the association.

10. The ALJ ordered the Respondent to abide by A.R.S. §33-1812(A), which prohibits votes cast by proxy. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for his $550 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case facts and legal arguments provided in the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Conflict of Governance Models: Analyze the Respondent’s argument that the delegate system is a form of “representative government” rather than a “proxy” system. Evaluate why the ALJ found this distinction to be a “distinction without a difference.”

2. Statutory Intent and Consumer Protection: The ALJ referenced the Legislature’s motivation to minimize “fraud and abuse” in association elections. Discuss how the delegate system, as described in the case, potentially increases the risks of disenfranchisement or abuse compared to traditional proxy voting.

3. The Disenfranchisement Argument: Examine the ALJ’s mathematical breakdown of the election results (18 delegates casting votes for 1,094 members). Discuss the implications of a system where a candidate could be elected to a Board despite being opposed by the vast majority of the community members.

4. Contractual Rights vs. Legislative Mandates: The Respondent argued that prohibiting delegate voting would unconstitutionally impair the contractual rights of the Association and its members. Critique this argument using the ALJ’s perspective that the “association is its members.”

5. Defining the Voter: Explore the irony identified by the ALJ in the Respondent’s claim that individual members are not “disenfranchised” because they have no right to vote for Board members under the Association’s Declaration. How does this claim conflict with the requirements of A.R.S. §33-1812(A)?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. §33-1812(A)

The Arizona Revised Statute that prohibits votes allocated to a unit from being cast via proxy after the period of declarant control ends.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (in this case, Michael K. Carroll) who hears evidence and issues a decision in a dispute involving state agency regulations.

Absentee Ballot

A method of voting allowed by statute that permits a member to cast their vote without being physically present at a meeting.

Articles of Incorporation

One of the primary governing documents of the Association that establishes its existence as a legal entity.

By-Laws

The rules adopted by the Association for the regulation and management of its affairs.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal document that outlines the rules and structure of the planned community.

Declarant Control

A period during which the developer/builder maintains control over the association before it is turned over to the homeowners.

Discretion

The freedom or power of a delegate to make a decision (such as a vote) based on their own judgment rather than a mandate from others.

Disenfranchisement

The deprivation of a right or privilege, specifically the right to vote.

Petitioner

The party who brings a legal petition or claim to the court (in this case, William M. Brown).

A person authorized to act as a substitute for another, particularly for voting purposes.

Respondent

The party against whom a legal petition is filed (in this case, Terravita Community Association, Inc.).

Voting Delegate

A representative elected by a neighborhood within the community to cast the collective votes of that neighborhood in Association matters.

——————————————————————————–

End of Study Guide






Blog Post – 07F-H067035-BFS


Case Summary: William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Association, Inc. Case No. 07F-H067035-BFS

Hearing Details The hearing was held on August 9, 2007, before Administrative Law Judge Michael K. Carroll at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona1,2. The dispute involved Petitioner William M. Brown, a lot owner, and Respondent Terravita Community Association, Inc., a planned community consisting of 1,380 homes1,3.

Key Facts and Background Terravita is divided into 22 neighborhoods. Under its governing documents, members in each neighborhood elect a “voting delegate” rather than voting directly for the Board of Directors3,4. These delegates possess sole discretion to cast votes in Board elections on behalf of the neighborhood5.

On May 15, 2007, the Association held an election for three Board positions. Eighteen voting delegates cast votes representing 1,094 members6. Following this election, the Petitioner filed a challenge alleging that this “delegate” system constituted voting by proxy, which is prohibited by Arizona state law2,7.

Legal Issue The central legal issue was whether a “delegate” form of representative government violates A.R.S. §33-1812(A), which states that “votes allocated to a unit may not be cast pursuant to a proxy”7,8.

Key Arguments

• Petitioner’s Position: The Petitioner argued that the neighborhood voting delegate system functions as a proxy vote, thereby violating the statutory prohibition7.

• Respondent’s Position: The Association argued that delegates are not proxies. They contended that proxies are a form of “vote delivery,” whereas delegates represent a form of “corporate governance”9. Furthermore, the Association argued that under their documents, individual owners have no right to vote for the Board directly, meaning there was no individual vote to be cast by proxy in the first place10. They also claimed that ruling against the delegate system would impair contractual rights11.

Tribunal Analysis and Findings The Administrative Law Judge rejected the Association’s arguments, providing the following legal analysis:

1. Definition of Proxy: Citing Black’s Law Dictionary, the ALJ defined a proxy as one authorized to act as a substitute for another. Because delegates are authorized to act as substitutes for groups of members, the ALJ determined they are, by definition, proxies9,12.

2. Disenfranchisement: The ALJ noted that the delegate system creates a “unique form of proxy” that is more restrictive than traditional proxies. Unlike standard proxies, which can be revoked by the member, Terravita members cannot revoke their delegation or exercise individual preference once a delegate is elected13. The system effectively disenfranchised 1,362 of the 1,380 members in the Board election, allowing as few as 12 delegates to decide the outcome14.

3. Legislative Intent: The ALJ found that the Association’s argument—that members technically have no vote to proxy—was an attempt to circumvent the Legislature’s intent to prohibit proxies and prevent fraud15,16.

4. Contractual Rights: The ALJ dismissed the claim regarding impairment of contract, noting that an association is its members, and requiring membership-wide voting does not compromise the association’s rights17.

Final Decision and Order The ALJ ruled that the voting delegate system creates a “distinction without a difference” and that delegates are proxies18. Consequently, the use of delegates violates the clear language of A.R.S. §33-1812(A)18.

Outcome:

• The Respondent was ordered to abide by A.R.S. §33-1812(A), prohibiting votes cast pursuant to a proxy18.

• The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $55019.

The decision was issued on September 6, 200719.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William M. Brown (petitioner)
    Lot owner and member of Association

Respondent Side

  • Kristina L. Pywowarczuk (Respondent Attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC
  • Lynn M. Krupnik (Respondent Attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC
  • Quentin T. Phillips (Respondent Attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC
    Listed in mailing distribution

Neutral Parties

  • Michael K. Carroll (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Agency Official)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    H/C (Hearing Coordinator or similar)
  • Joyce Kesterman (Agency Official)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety

Heekin, Thomas v. The Cottages at Coffee Pot HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 07F-H067033-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2007-08-30
Administrative Law Judge Michael K. Carroll
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas Heekin Counsel Frederick M. Aspey
Respondent The Cottage at Coffee Pot Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Declaration Section 5.6
Declaration Section 10.2.2

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, vacating two Bylaw amendments adopted by the Board. The ALJ determined that the Bylaws conflicted with the Declaration: one by imposing non-uniform assessments (1% transfer fee) and the other by restricting the Design Review Committee's authority regarding building footprints. The Declaration controls over conflicting Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Validity of Bylaw Article XI (Transfer Assessment)

The Board adopted a Bylaw creating a 1% assessment on home sales. The ALJ found this violated the Declaration's requirement that Regular and Capital Improvement Assessments be uniform for each owner.

Orders: Board's action adopting Article XI of the Bylaws is vacated.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 23
  • 24
  • 30

Validity of Bylaw Article X (Architectural Restrictions)

The Board adopted a Bylaw prohibiting changes to the original building envelope. The ALJ found this conflicted with the Declaration, which vested authority in the Design Review Committee to approve such changes.

Orders: Board's action adopting Article X of the Bylaws is vacated.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 25
  • 27
  • 30

Decision Documents

07F-H067033-BFS Decision – 175114.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:33 (106.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 07F-H067033-BFS


Thomas Heekin vs. The Cottages at Coffee Pot Homeowners Association: Administrative Law Judge Decision

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law decision regarding a dispute between Thomas Heekin (Petitioner) and The Cottages at Coffee Pot Homeowners Association (Respondent). The central conflict involved the Board of Directors’ authority to adopt Bylaws that effectively modified the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (Declaration) without obtaining the 75% membership approval required for such amendments.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the Board overstepped its authority by enacting two specific Bylaws—Article X (architectural restrictions) and Article XI (a 1% transfer assessment). The decision established that when a Bylaw conflicts with the Declaration, the Declaration controls. Consequently, both Bylaws were declared invalid, and the Board’s actions were vacated.

Case Overview

The Cottages at Coffee Pot is a planned community in Sedona, Arizona, consisting of 34 individual townhouses. The Association is governed by a Board of nine members and three primary documents: the Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation, and the Bylaws.

The Core Dispute

In April 2006, the Board attempted to amend the Declaration via a membership vote. The proposed amendments included:

• Reducing the required percentage to change the Declaration from 75% to 66⅔%.

• Implementing a 1% assessment on the sale of any lot.

• Restricting architectural changes to the original building footprint.

When these amendments failed to receive the necessary 75% approval, the Board proceeded to adopt the same restrictions by enacting new Bylaws (Articles X and XI) through a simple Board vote. The Petitioner challenged these actions, alleging they were an attempt to circumvent the will of the membership.

Analysis of Challenged Bylaws

Article XI: The 1% “Special Assessment”

Article XI required all new owners to pay a “Special Assessment” of 1% of the transaction price upon the sale or exchange of a lot, excluding cases of inheritance or will.

The Board’s Justification: The Board argued that A.R.S. §10-3302 allows non-profit corporations to impose dues and transfer fees. They claimed the assessment was necessary to fund upkeep, capital improvements, and contingencies without increasing annual dues for existing members.

The Conflict with the Declaration: The ALJ found that Article XI directly violated Section 5.6 of the Declaration, which mandates:

• Uniformity: “Regular Assessments, Capital Improvement Assessments, and Reconstruction Assessments for each owner shall be uniform.”

• Disproportionality: The 1% fee assessed members unequally based on varying sales prices and applied only to those buying or selling, forcing a specific subset of members to subsidize costs that the Declaration requires all members to share equally.

Conclusion: Because the revenue was used for common expenses normally covered by “Regular Assessments,” it was subject to the uniformity requirement of the Declaration. The Bylaw was therefore invalid.

Article X: Architectural Design Restrictions

Article X prohibited the Design Review Committee (DRC) from approving any changes to the outside dimensions of a cottage, effectively freezing the “building envelope” to the original foundation.

The Board’s Justification: The Board maintained that the Bylaws may contain provisions relating to the conduct of Association affairs as long as they are not inconsistent with the Declaration.

The Conflict with the Declaration: The ALJ identified several points of friction between Article X and the Declaration:

• Committee Authority: Section 10.4 of the Declaration gives the DRC the specific authority to approve or disapprove changes to a unit.

• Developable Area: Section 10.2.2 vests the power to designate the “maximum developable area” of any lot in the DRC.

• Extinguishment of Rights: The Board’s adoption of Article X extinguished the discretionary authority granted to the DRC by the Declaration.

Conclusion: The ALJ noted that while the Board might currently comprise the DRC, future boards or members might wish to maintain the right to submit plans for approval. A Bylaw cannot negate authority explicitly granted in the Declaration.

Legal Findings and Principles

The decision was guided by the following legal and contractual principles derived from the Association’s governing documents and state law:

Principle

Source/Reference

Description

Hierarchy of Documents

Declaration, Section 20.1

If a conflict exists between the Declaration and the Bylaws, the Declaration controls.

Amendment Threshold

Declaration, Section 17.2

Amendments to the Declaration require a 75% vote of the membership.

Contractual Integrity

ALJ Conclusion

Bylaws that conflict with the Declaration violate the contract made between each member and the Association at the time of purchase.

Stability of Provisions

Declaration, Section 18.5

No change of conditions or circumstances shall operate to extinguish or modify the provisions of the Declaration unless expressly provided.

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

1. Vacation of Article X: The Board’s action adopting Article X of the Bylaws (Architectural Restrictions) is vacated.

2. Vacation of Article XI: The Board’s action adopting Article XI of the Bylaws (1% Assessment) is vacated.

3. Reimbursement: The Respondent (The Association) is ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for the $550 filing fee.

This decision serves as a final agency action and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.






Study Guide – 07F-H067033-BFS


Legal Analysis Study Guide: Heekin v. The Cottages at Coffeepot Homeowners Association

This study guide reviews the administrative law proceedings regarding the dispute between Thomas Heekin and The Cottages at Coffeepot Homeowners Association. It explores the legal hierarchy of community governing documents and the limitations of a Board of Directors’ authority to amend bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided administrative law judge’s decision.

1. What was the primary allegation made by the Petitioner in his April 20, 2007, filing?

2. How is the voting power and membership of the Association structured?

3. What was the outcome of the membership vote on April 29, 2006, regarding the proposed amendments to the Declaration?

4. Describe the specific restrictions introduced by the Board through the adoption of Article X of the Bylaws.

5. What was the stated purpose of the 1% “Special Assessment” established in Article XI of the Bylaws?

6. According to Section 5.6 of the Declaration, how must assessments for common expenses be distributed among owners?

7. On what grounds did the Respondent argue that the Board had the authority to impose transfer fees?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that Article XI of the Bylaws was invalid despite its name?

9. How did Article X of the Bylaws conflict with the authority granted to the Design Review Committee in the Declaration?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Board’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Board of Directors adopted Bylaws (Articles X and XI) that violated the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He argued the Board used a simple majority vote to pass rules that the membership had previously rejected as formal amendments to the Declaration.

2. The Cottages consists of 34 individual townhouse lots, where each lot represents one membership in the Association. Consequently, each lot owner is entitled to one vote in any business of the Association that is subject to a membership vote.

3. The proposed amendments failed because the Board could not secure enough votes to reduce the required approval percentage from 75% to 66⅔%. Because the threshold remained at 75%, there were insufficient votes to pass any of the four proposed changes, including the transfer fee and the construction restrictions.

4. Article X prohibited the Design Review Committee from approving any plans involving changes to the original outside dimensions of a cottage. This included a ban on new construction, add-ons, or modifications to the original building envelope or foundation.

5. The fee was intended to fund the upkeep and maintenance of association property, capital improvements, and contingency funds. The Board president noted that this revenue was necessary to avoid increasing annual dues or imposing a separate maintenance assessment on all homeowners.

6. Section 5.6 of the Declaration requires that Regular Assessments, Capital Improvement Assessments, and Reconstruction Assessments must be uniform for each owner. This ensures that the Proportionate Share of Common Expenses is distributed equally rather than based on individual transactions.

7. The Respondent cited A.R.S. §10-3302, stating that non-profit corporations have the power to impose dues and transfer fees unless prohibited by the Articles of Incorporation. They further argued that Article VIII of the Bylaws empowered the Board to adopt new Bylaws that were not inconsistent with the Declaration.

8. The ALJ found that the “Special Assessment” was actually being used to cover “Common Expenses” typically funded by Regular Assessments. Because Article XI assessed members disproportionately based on sales prices and exempted those who inherited property, it violated the Declaration’s requirement for uniform assessments.

9. Section 10.2.2 of the Declaration explicitly grants the Design Review Committee the power to designate the maximum developable area of any lot. By adopting Article X, the Board effectively extinguished that discretionary authority, which the Declaration protects from being modified by simple Bylaw changes.

10. The ALJ ordered that the Board’s actions in adopting both Article X and Article XI of the Bylaws be vacated. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for his $550 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the facts and legal conclusions provided in the text to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Hierarchy of Governance: Discuss the legal relationship between a community’s Declaration, Articles of Incorporation, and Bylaws. Based on the judge’s ruling, explain which document takes precedence in a conflict and why this hierarchy is essential for protecting the “contract” between the Association and its members.

2. Circumvention of Membership Will: Analyze the Board’s decision to adopt Articles X and XI as Bylaws after they failed to pass as amendments to the Declaration. Evaluate the Petitioner’s claim that this action constituted a breach of the duty to engage in fair dealing and good faith.

3. Uniformity in Assessments: Examine the distinction between “Common Expenses” and the Board’s 1% “Special Assessment.” Why is the requirement for “uniform” assessments (as found in Section 5.6 of the Declaration) a critical protection for individual homeowners in a planned community?

4. Discretionary Authority of Committees: Explain how Article X of the Bylaws impacted the Design Review Committee. Discuss the judge’s reasoning regarding why the authority of a committee granted by the Declaration cannot be stripped away by a Board-enacted Bylaw.

5. Long-term Implications of Governance Changes: The ALJ noted that while a Bylaw is easily changed by future Boards, the Declaration represents a more permanent agreement. Discuss the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Declaration over time, even when current Board members or a simple majority of residents desire a change.

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. §10-3302

An Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Respondent, granting non-profit corporations the power to impose dues, assessments, and transfer fees on members.

Building Envelope

The original physical separator between the conditioned and unconditioned environment of a structure, including the foundation and outside dimensions.

Bylaws

The rules adopted by the Board of Directors for the administration and management of the Association; in this case, secondary to the Declaration.

Capital Improvement Assessments

Fees levied against owners to fund major additions or improvements to the Association’s common areas.

Common Expenses

The actual and estimated costs incurred for maintaining, operating, and repairing the project and common areas, shared by all members.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The primary governing document of a planned community that sets forth covenants, conditions, and restrictions; it holds superior authority over Bylaws.

Design Review Committee

The body authorized by the Declaration to approve or disapprove architectural changes and designate maximum developable areas on lots.

Petitioner

The party (Thomas Heekin) who brings a legal petition or claim against another party in an administrative hearing.

Proportionate Share

The equal distribution of common expenses among all owners, as mandated by the Declaration to ensure assessment uniformity.

Regular Assessment

The recurring amount paid by each owner to cover their share of the Association’s ongoing operating and maintenance costs.

Respondent

The party (The Cottages at Coffeepot HOA) against whom a petition or legal claim is filed.

Special Assessment

A one-time or specific fee; in this case, the term was used by the Board to describe a 1% fee on property sales, which was eventually ruled invalid.






Blog Post – 07F-H067033-BFS


Legal Analysis Study Guide: Heekin v. The Cottages at Coffeepot Homeowners Association

This study guide reviews the administrative law proceedings regarding the dispute between Thomas Heekin and The Cottages at Coffeepot Homeowners Association. It explores the legal hierarchy of community governing documents and the limitations of a Board of Directors’ authority to amend bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided administrative law judge’s decision.

1. What was the primary allegation made by the Petitioner in his April 20, 2007, filing?

2. How is the voting power and membership of the Association structured?

3. What was the outcome of the membership vote on April 29, 2006, regarding the proposed amendments to the Declaration?

4. Describe the specific restrictions introduced by the Board through the adoption of Article X of the Bylaws.

5. What was the stated purpose of the 1% “Special Assessment” established in Article XI of the Bylaws?

6. According to Section 5.6 of the Declaration, how must assessments for common expenses be distributed among owners?

7. On what grounds did the Respondent argue that the Board had the authority to impose transfer fees?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that Article XI of the Bylaws was invalid despite its name?

9. How did Article X of the Bylaws conflict with the authority granted to the Design Review Committee in the Declaration?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Board’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Board of Directors adopted Bylaws (Articles X and XI) that violated the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He argued the Board used a simple majority vote to pass rules that the membership had previously rejected as formal amendments to the Declaration.

2. The Cottages consists of 34 individual townhouse lots, where each lot represents one membership in the Association. Consequently, each lot owner is entitled to one vote in any business of the Association that is subject to a membership vote.

3. The proposed amendments failed because the Board could not secure enough votes to reduce the required approval percentage from 75% to 66⅔%. Because the threshold remained at 75%, there were insufficient votes to pass any of the four proposed changes, including the transfer fee and the construction restrictions.

4. Article X prohibited the Design Review Committee from approving any plans involving changes to the original outside dimensions of a cottage. This included a ban on new construction, add-ons, or modifications to the original building envelope or foundation.

5. The fee was intended to fund the upkeep and maintenance of association property, capital improvements, and contingency funds. The Board president noted that this revenue was necessary to avoid increasing annual dues or imposing a separate maintenance assessment on all homeowners.

6. Section 5.6 of the Declaration requires that Regular Assessments, Capital Improvement Assessments, and Reconstruction Assessments must be uniform for each owner. This ensures that the Proportionate Share of Common Expenses is distributed equally rather than based on individual transactions.

7. The Respondent cited A.R.S. §10-3302, stating that non-profit corporations have the power to impose dues and transfer fees unless prohibited by the Articles of Incorporation. They further argued that Article VIII of the Bylaws empowered the Board to adopt new Bylaws that were not inconsistent with the Declaration.

8. The ALJ found that the “Special Assessment” was actually being used to cover “Common Expenses” typically funded by Regular Assessments. Because Article XI assessed members disproportionately based on sales prices and exempted those who inherited property, it violated the Declaration’s requirement for uniform assessments.

9. Section 10.2.2 of the Declaration explicitly grants the Design Review Committee the power to designate the maximum developable area of any lot. By adopting Article X, the Board effectively extinguished that discretionary authority, which the Declaration protects from being modified by simple Bylaw changes.

10. The ALJ ordered that the Board’s actions in adopting both Article X and Article XI of the Bylaws be vacated. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for his $550 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the facts and legal conclusions provided in the text to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Hierarchy of Governance: Discuss the legal relationship between a community’s Declaration, Articles of Incorporation, and Bylaws. Based on the judge’s ruling, explain which document takes precedence in a conflict and why this hierarchy is essential for protecting the “contract” between the Association and its members.

2. Circumvention of Membership Will: Analyze the Board’s decision to adopt Articles X and XI as Bylaws after they failed to pass as amendments to the Declaration. Evaluate the Petitioner’s claim that this action constituted a breach of the duty to engage in fair dealing and good faith.

3. Uniformity in Assessments: Examine the distinction between “Common Expenses” and the Board’s 1% “Special Assessment.” Why is the requirement for “uniform” assessments (as found in Section 5.6 of the Declaration) a critical protection for individual homeowners in a planned community?

4. Discretionary Authority of Committees: Explain how Article X of the Bylaws impacted the Design Review Committee. Discuss the judge’s reasoning regarding why the authority of a committee granted by the Declaration cannot be stripped away by a Board-enacted Bylaw.

5. Long-term Implications of Governance Changes: The ALJ noted that while a Bylaw is easily changed by future Boards, the Declaration represents a more permanent agreement. Discuss the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Declaration over time, even when current Board members or a simple majority of residents desire a change.

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. §10-3302

An Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Respondent, granting non-profit corporations the power to impose dues, assessments, and transfer fees on members.

Building Envelope

The original physical separator between the conditioned and unconditioned environment of a structure, including the foundation and outside dimensions.

Bylaws

The rules adopted by the Board of Directors for the administration and management of the Association; in this case, secondary to the Declaration.

Capital Improvement Assessments

Fees levied against owners to fund major additions or improvements to the Association’s common areas.

Common Expenses

The actual and estimated costs incurred for maintaining, operating, and repairing the project and common areas, shared by all members.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The primary governing document of a planned community that sets forth covenants, conditions, and restrictions; it holds superior authority over Bylaws.

Design Review Committee

The body authorized by the Declaration to approve or disapprove architectural changes and designate maximum developable areas on lots.

Petitioner

The party (Thomas Heekin) who brings a legal petition or claim against another party in an administrative hearing.

Proportionate Share

The equal distribution of common expenses among all owners, as mandated by the Declaration to ensure assessment uniformity.

Regular Assessment

The recurring amount paid by each owner to cover their share of the Association’s ongoing operating and maintenance costs.

Respondent

The party (The Cottages at Coffeepot HOA) against whom a petition or legal claim is filed.

Special Assessment

A one-time or specific fee; in this case, the term was used by the Board to describe a 1% fee on property sales, which was eventually ruled invalid.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas Heekin (Petitioner)
    The Cottages at Coffeepot
    Owner of residence at The Cottages
  • Frederick M. Aspey (attorney)
    Attorney for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Armistead Gilliam (representative)
    The Cottage at Coffee Pot Homeowners Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Charles Nyberg (representative)
    The Cottage at Coffee Pot Homeowners Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Peter Fagan (representative)
    The Cottage at Coffee Pot Homeowners Association
    Listed contact for Respondent in service list

Neutral Parties

  • Michael K. Carroll (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Robert Barger (agency official)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of original decision transmission
  • Joyce Kesterman (agency official)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of original decision transmission

Pontius, Ellsworth vs. Sun City Grand Community Association Management

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 07F-H067037-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2007-08-20
Administrative Law Judge Michael K. Carroll
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ellsworth Pontius Counsel —
Respondent Sun City Grand Community Association Management Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Declaration Section 10.4(b); Guidelines Section A.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition. The Judge found that the Association's governing documents permitted the Architectural Review Committee to grant conditional approvals. The Committee's response to the Petitioner was unambiguous in disapproving the location 12 feet from the garage corner, which Petitioner subsequently used.

Why this result: The Petitioner's interpretation that the Committee could not issue conditional approvals was incorrect under the governing documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to follow governing documents regarding architectural approval

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to follow governing documents by granting a conditional approval for an evaporative cooler rather than a strict approval or disapproval. Petitioner installed the cooler in a location specifically noted as disapproved by the Committee.

Orders: The Petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 19

Decision Documents

07F-H067037-BFS Decision – 174393.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:47 (92.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 07F-H067037-BFS


Briefing on Administrative Law Judge Decision: Pontius v. Sun City Grand Community Association Management

Executive Summary

This briefing details the findings and conclusions of the Office of Administrative Hearings for the State of Arizona in the matter of Ellsworth Pontius v. Sun City Grand Community Association Management (No. 07F-H067037-BFS). The case centers on a dispute regarding the installation of an evaporative cooler on the exterior of a residence and whether the Sun City Grand Architectural Review Committee (the Committee) followed its governing documents during the approval process.

The Petitioner, Ellsworth Pontius, contended that the Association’s approval form was ambiguous and that the Committee lacked the authority to issue conditional approvals under its current guidelines. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Michael K. Carroll, ultimately denied the petition. The ruling established that while the Association’s communication may have been “sloppy,” the intent was clear, and the governing documents permitted the Committee to approve or disapprove specific segments of a proposal.

Case Background

On June 11, 2007, Ellsworth Pontius filed a petition alleging that the Respondent, Sun City Grand Community Association Management, failed to follow its governing documents regarding the approval of an evaporative cooler.

The Application Process

In June 2006, the Petitioner submitted a request to install an evaporative cooler. The approval process involved two iterations of forms and diagrams:

• Initial Submission: The original form included three options for the Committee: “Approved,” “Approved as Noted,” and “Disapproved.”

• Revised Submission: At the Respondent’s request, the Petitioner resubmitted the application on a newer form which only offered two options: “APPROVED” or “DISAPPROVED.”

• Proposed Locations: The Petitioner provided a diagram indicating two choices for the cooler’s placement on the exterior garage wall:

◦ Option 1: 24 feet from the front corner of the garage.

◦ Option 2: 12 feet from the front corner of the garage.

The Committee’s Response

The Committee returned the form with “APPROVED” checked. However, the form included conflicting handwritten notations and attachments:

1. A note stating “Option #1 only #2 disapproved” was written and then crossed out.

2. A second note stated “only approved with wall surrounding evaporative cooler.”

3. An attached diagram featured an arrow pointing to Option 1 (24 feet) labeled “Approved Location,” while Option 2 (12 feet) was circled and marked “This location disapproved.”

4. A plot plan provided by the Committee marked the 12-foot distance in red ink as “disapproved.”

Key Themes and Legal Arguments

1. Interpretive Rigidity vs. Intent of Governing Documents

The Petitioner argued that because the newer form lacked a “Conditional Approval” checkbox, the Committee was forced into a binary choice: approve the entire application or disapprove it entirely. He maintained that by checking “Approved,” the Committee had sanctioned his entire plan, including his second choice of location.

The ALJ rejected this interpretation, citing the underlying authority of the Association’s Declaration and Guidelines:

• Declaration Section 10.4 (b): States the Reviewing Body shall advise the party of “(i) the approval of Plans, or (ii) the segments or features of the Plans which are deemed… to be inconsistent… and suggestions… for the curing of such objections.”

• Guidelines Section A.2: Defines “Disapproved” as a state where the “entire document submitted is not approved,” but notes that the response must set forth reasons and suggestions for conformity.

The Judge concluded: “Clearly, both the Declaration and the Guidelines contemplate that the Committee may approve applications subject to certain conditions being satisfied by the applicant.”

2. Ambiguity and “Sloppy” Documentation

The Petitioner argued that the crossed-out notes and the “Approved” checkbox created a level of ambiguity that justified his decision to install the cooler at the 12-foot location (Option 2), which he found more suitable due to interior garage cabinets.

The ALJ characterized the Committee’s paperwork as “sloppy,” but legally “unequivocal.” The inclusion of the plot plan with red ink specifically disapproving the 12-foot location was deemed sufficient to communicate the Committee’s intent.

3. The Spirit of Cooperation

A central theme in the decision was the expectation of reasonableness between homeowners and associations. The ALJ noted that Committee members are often volunteers without technical expertise. The ruling emphasized:

• Clarification: If the Petitioner found the response confusing, he should have requested clarification before proceeding with installation.

• Mutual Cooperation: “Inherent in any contract, and particularly one between neighbors, is a spirit of mutual cooperation and reasonableness.”

Evidence Summary

Evidence Item

Description

Significance

Exhibit P1

Amended and Restated Declaration (CC&Rs)

Established the legal right of the ARC to reject “segments or features” of a plan.

Exhibit P3

Design Guidelines

Outlined the procedure for approval and the definitions of response forms.

Exhibit P4

New Approval Form

Contained only “Approved” and “Disapproved” boxes; the core of Petitioner’s “binary” argument.

Exhibit P5

Plot Plan with Red Ink

Provided clear visual evidence that the 12-foot location was specifically rejected.

Exhibit P7

New Residential Design Guideline

A guideline passed after the violation that actually authorized the 12-foot location.

Conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge

The ALJ determined that the Petitioner violated the Declaration and Guidelines by installing the cooler at the 12-foot location. Despite the Petitioner’s technical arguments regarding the layout of the approval form, the legal authority of the Declaration superseded the design of the form itself.

Final Order: The Petition was denied on August 20, 2007.

Post-Hearing Context: During the hearing, Respondent’s president, Rocky Roccanova, noted that a new design guideline had since been passed which would allow the 12-foot installation. He suggested that if the Petitioner resubmitted his application, it would likely be approved with minor modifications regarding paint color and screening shrubs. Nevertheless, the Petitioner’s failure to follow the original, specific (if poorly communicated) approval was a violation.






Study Guide – 07F-H067037-BFS


Case Analysis: Pontius v. Sun City Grand Community Association Management

This study guide provides an overview and analysis of the administrative law case Ellsworth Pontius vs. Sun City Grand Community Association Management (No. 07F-H067037-BFS). The case centers on disputes regarding architectural review procedures and the interpretation of community governing documents.

Short-Answer Quiz

1. What was the core allegation Ellsworth Pontius made in his petition against the Sun City Grand Community Association?

2. Describe the two location options for the evaporative cooler that the Petitioner originally proposed on his application diagram.

3. What specific notations did the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) make on the Petitioner’s approval form regarding his two location options?

4. Why did the Petitioner choose to install the cooler 12 feet from the front corner of the garage instead of his “first choice” location?

5. What notice did the Petitioner receive after he completed the installation of the evaporative cooler?

6. On what grounds did the Petitioner argue that the Committee’s approval process was limited to only “approved” or “disapproved”?

7. How did Section 10.4 (b) of the Declaration define the responsibilities of the Reviewing Body when responding to a plan submission?

8. According to the Design Guidelines, what information must be included in a “Disapproved” response?

9. What did Respondent’s president, Rocky Roccanova, testify regarding the Association’s rules after the Petitioner’s cooler was already installed?

10. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the alleged ambiguity of the Committee’s response?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. Answer: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to follow its own governing documents when granting approval for the installation of an evaporative cooler on the exterior of his residence. He specifically challenged the Committee’s authority to impose conditions or specific locations if they marked the form as “Approved.”

2. Answer: The Petitioner’s first choice was to place the cooler 24 feet from the front corner of the garage. His second choice was a location 12 feet from the front corner of the garage.

3. Answer: The Committee checked the “APPROVED” box but included handwritten notes stating “only approved with wall surrounding evaporative cooler” and specifically marked the diagram to show the 24-foot location was approved while the 12-foot location was disapproved. They also provided a plot plan where the 12-foot distance was circled in red ink and marked “disapproved.”

4. Answer: After receiving the form, the Petitioner discovered that built-in cabinets occupied much of the interior garage wall at the 24-foot location. Consequently, he determined the 12-foot location was more suitable for the installation.

5. Answer: The Petitioner received a notice of violation from the Committee stating that he had violated the Committee Guidelines and the Declaration. This was because he installed the cooler in a location different from the one specifically approved by the Committee.

6. Answer: The Petitioner argued that the newer approval form (Exhibit P4) only contained two options: “Approved” or “Disapproved.” He contended that since the “Approved” box was checked, any attempt by the Committee to reject a specific part of the plan was invalid because they did not select “Disapproved” and request a resubmission.

7. Answer: The Declaration required the Reviewing Body to advise the party in writing of either the approval of the plans or the specific segments and features deemed inconsistent with the Declaration or Guidelines. If parts were inconsistent, the body was required to provide reasons and suggestions for curing the objections.

8. Answer: The Guidelines stated that a “Disapproved” status meant the entire document was not approved and no work could commence. The response was required to set forth the reasons for disapproval and offer suggestions for bringing the document into conformity.

9. Answer: Roccanova testified that the Association had passed a new residential design guideline that actually authorized cooler installations at the 12-foot location the Committee had originally rejected. He noted that if the Petitioner resubmitted his application, it would likely be approved with only minor modifications.

10. Answer: The Judge concluded that while the Committee’s response may have been “sloppy,” it was not ambiguous. The Judge ruled that the attached plot plans were unequivocal in showing that the 12-foot location was disapproved and that the Petitioner should have sought clarification before proceeding.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Procedural Precision vs. Substantive Intent: Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s argument that community documents do not require “technical precision.” Discuss how this perspective affects the balance of power between homeowners and volunteer boards.

2. The Evolution of Governing Documents: Compare the original approval form (Exhibit P6) with the revised form (Exhibit P4). Explain how the removal of the “Approved as Noted” option contributed to the legal dispute and how the Judge reconciled this change with the overarching Declaration.

3. The Duty of Clarification: The Judge suggested that the Petitioner had a responsibility to request clarification from the Committee before installing the cooler. Discuss the legal and ethical implications of a homeowner’s “duty to cooperate” when faced with confusing instructions from a governing body.

4. Contractual Spirit in Homeowners Associations: Explore the Judge’s statement that a “spirit of mutual cooperation and reasonableness” is inherent in contracts between neighbors. How does this principle influence the interpretation of strict legal text in the context of CC&Rs?

5. Retroactive Rule Changes and Compliance: Even though the Association eventually changed its rules to allow the Petitioner’s preferred location, the Judge still denied the petition. Evaluate the importance of following the process of approval versus following the substance of the current rules.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies or specific statutory petitions, as seen in this case within the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (Declaration): The primary governing document for a common interest community that sets forth the rights and obligations of the association and the owners.

• Architectural Review Committee (Committee/ARC): The body within a community association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying requests for exterior modifications to properties.

• Design Guidelines (Guidelines/RDGs): A set of specific procedures and standards for the submission and approval of architectural plans, which supplement the broader Declaration.

• Disapproved: A status indicating that a submitted plan is rejected in its entirety, meaning no work may commence, and usually requiring a resubmission with revisions.

• Evaporative Cooler: The specific exterior appliance at the center of the dispute, which the Petitioner sought to install on his garage wall.

• Findings of Fact: The portion of a legal decision where the judge outlines the events and circumstances that were proven to be true based on the evidence and testimony presented.

• Petitioner: The party who files a petition or claim; in this case, Ellsworth Pontius.

• Plot Plan: A diagram showing the layout of a building and its location on a lot, used by the Committee to mark approved and disapproved locations for the cooler.

• Respondent: The party against whom a petition or claim is filed; in this case, the Sun City Grand Community Association Management.






Blog Post – 07F-H067037-BFS


The “Approved” Checkbox Trap: How HOA Sloppy Paperwork Can Lead to Legal Disaster

Navigating the bureaucratic maze of Homeowners Association (HOA) approvals is a ritual of modern homeownership that few enjoy. We dutifully fill out forms, attach diagrams, and wait for that one golden word to be checked on the response sheet: “APPROVED.” In a world governed by rigid rules and fine print, that checkbox feels like a definitive green light—a contractually binding “go” for your home improvement dreams.

However, the legal saga of Pontius v. Sun City Grand Community Association serves as a sobering cautionary tale for any homeowner who believes a checkbox is the final word. Mr. Pontius saw the “APPROVED” box checked on his application for an evaporative cooler and proceeded with his installation. Yet, he still found himself locked in a courtroom battle, facing a violation notice for doing exactly what he thought the association had authorized. This case reveals a “bureaucratic bait-and-switch” that every homeowner should study before picking up a hammer.

Takeaway 1: Sloppy Paperwork Isn’t a “Get Out of Jail Free” Card

The friction in the Pontius case began with an administrative hurdle. Mr. Pontius originally submitted a form (Exhibit P6) that offered the Committee three clear choices: “Approved,” “Approved as Noted,” or “Disapproved.” However, he was then forced to resubmit on a newer form (Exhibit P4) that stripped away the middle ground, leaving only “APPROVED” or “DISAPPROVED.”

When the Committee returned this new form, the “APPROVED” box was checked, but the paperwork was a mess of conflicting signals. A handwritten note reading “Option #1 only #2 disapproved” had been physically crossed out and replaced with a different note regarding a “wall surrounding [the] evaporative cooler.” To a homeowner, this looked like the specific disapproval of his second choice had been rescinded.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Michael K. Carroll acknowledged the paperwork was “sloppy,” but ruled it was not “ambiguous.” The court looked past the messy handwriting to the specific diagrams attached to the form.

The lesson? Legal weight is given to the “entirety” of a response. You cannot simply cling to a favorable checkbox while ignoring the red ink on the attachments.

Takeaway 2: The Logic of “Ask, Don’t Assume”

The conflict escalated when Mr. Pontius realized that his “approved” location—24 feet from the garage corner—was impractical due to interior cabinets that blocked the installation. He decided to proceed with his second choice, the 12-foot location, reasoning that because the “Disapproved” note was crossed out and the main box said “Approved,” he was in the clear.

The ALJ took a dim view of this unilateral move. The ruling established that if an HOA’s response is contradictory or confusing, the burden of communication shifts to the homeowner. You don’t get to choose the interpretation that suits your interior design needs.

This “duty to clarify” means that the moment you spot an inconsistency in your HOA’s paperwork, your first move should be to get a written clarification, not a contractor.

Takeaway 3: The “Volunteer Standard” of Precision

As a homeowner advocate, it’s easy to demand that HOA boards operate with the professional precision of a high-end law firm. However, the Pontius ruling highlights a grounded legal reality: these boards are comprised of neighbors who are volunteers, not technical experts.

The ALJ found that the law does not require HOAs to act with “technical precision,” because the governing documents are a contract between neighbors, not a penal code. The judge specifically pointed to Section 10.4(b) of the Declaration and Section A.2 of the Guidelines, which allow the Committee to approve segments of a plan or offer suggestions for curing objections. In the eyes of the court, the underlying contract (the Declaration) overrides a simple checkbox. The ALJ noted that community living requires a “spirit of mutual cooperation,” and the lack of professional-grade administrative work did not invalidate the Association’s right to enforce its standards.

Takeaway 4: The Irony of Being “Right” at the Wrong Time

The most frustrating twist in this case is that Mr. Pontius was eventually proven right—technically. During the dispute, Sun City Grand actually updated its Residential Design Guidelines to permit the 12-foot location he had fought for.

Under the new rules, his cooler would have been perfectly fine. However, this didn’t save him. The judge ruled that he had still violated the process and the specific approval that existed at the time. The absurdity of the situation was compounded by testimony from Association President Rocky Roccanova, who admitted that if Pontius simply resubmitted his application under the new rules, it would likely be approved with “minor modifications”—specifically, a new coat of paint and the planting of a shrub.

This highlights a fundamental truth: in the world of HOAs, the “process” is often treated as more sacred than the project itself. Having a good idea doesn’t excuse bypassing the bureaucratic machinery.

Summary: The Spirit of the Contract

The Pontius case reminds us that community documents are viewed by the courts as contracts rooted in reasonableness rather than rigid checklists. While it is tempting to treat an HOA as a faceless bureaucracy to be outmaneuvered via “gotcha” moments in sloppy paperwork, the legal system prioritizes transparency and mutual effort.

Success in a common-interest community requires homeowners to look beyond the checkboxes and engage with the actual intent of the guidelines.

In a world of rigid rules and messy paperwork, is the “spirit of cooperation” still a viable standard for modern community living?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Ellsworth Pontius (petitioner)
    Sun City Grand
    Resident and member of Sun City Grand Community Association

Respondent Side

  • Rocky Roccanova (board president)
    Sun City Grand Community Association Management
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; testified

Neutral Parties

  • Michael K. Carroll (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (agency official)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of original decision via mail
  • Joyce Kesterman (agency staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of original decision via mail (ATTN)

Waugaman, Nancy -v- Troon Village Master Associaton

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 07F-H067029-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2007-08-13
Administrative Law Judge Michael K. Carroll
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy Waugaman Counsel —
Respondent Troon Village Master Association Counsel Carrie Smith and Jason Smith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §33-1804(C)
A.R.S. §33-1804(A)
Declaration Section 11.02; Section 14.01
A.R.S. §33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ vacated the Board's Resolution which interpreted the Declaration's amendment provision (Section 11.02) to require only 80% of voting members present rather than 80% of total membership. Consequently, amendments passed under this new interpretation were vacated. Claims regarding open meeting notice and records formats were denied, but Petitioner was awarded full reimbursement of filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide notice of executive session

Petitioner argued the Board failed to notice an executive session held prior to a regular meeting.

Orders: ALJ found no statutory or governing document requirement to notice executive sessions.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Improper subject matter for executive session

Petitioner alleged the Resolution regarding voting interpretation should have been discussed in an open meeting.

Orders: ALJ found the discussion involved legal advice regarding pending litigation, which is permitted in closed session.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Invalid interpretation of voting requirements

Board passed a resolution interpreting '80% of total voting power' to mean 80% of votes cast at a meeting, then passed amendments under this lower threshold.

Orders: The Board's Resolution and all subsequent Declaration amendments were vacated.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Denial of records in workable format

Petitioner requested mailing list in label format; Respondent initially provided spreadsheet.

Orders: ALJ found no violation as records were made available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

07F-H067029-BFS Decision – 173903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:25 (120.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 07F-H067029-BFS


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Waugaman v. Troon Village Master Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the findings and legal conclusions from the Office of Administrative Hearings (Case No. 07F-H067029-BFS) regarding a dispute between Nancy Waugaman (Petitioner) and the Troon Village Master Association (Respondent).

The core of the dispute involved a Board resolution passed in October 2006 that fundamentally altered the voting requirements for amending the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). By “interpreting” the Declaration’s requirement for an 80% affirmative vote of the total voting power to mean 80% of those voting at a meeting where a quorum is present, the Board lowered the threshold for amendments from 1,058 votes to as few as 106 votes.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled that the Board exceeded its authority. The decision concluded that the Declaration was not ambiguous and that the Board’s “interpretation” was an invalid attempt to circumvent clear contractual language. Consequently, the Board’s resolution and all subsequent amendments passed under the new interpretation were vacated.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Factual Background

Parties and Governance

• Petitioner: Nancy Waugaman, a member of the Association.

• Respondent: Troon Village Master Association, a planned community consisting of 1,322 members.

• Governing Documents: The Association is governed by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (Declaration), Articles of Incorporation, and Bylaws.

The Disputed Board Resolution

On October 16, 2006, the Board met in an executive session with legal counsel. During this session, the Board passed a resolution to “interpret” Section 11.02 of the Declaration.

Provision

Original Requirement (Section 11.02)

Board’s New Interpretation

Voting Threshold

80% of the total voting power in the Association.

80% of the members voting (in person or by absentee ballot) at a meeting.

Practical Impact

Required a minimum of 1,058 affirmative votes (80% of 1,322).

Required as few as 106 affirmative votes (80% of a 10% quorum).

Post-Resolution Actions

Following this resolution, the Board held a Special Meeting and passed several amendments to the Declaration, including:

• Elimination of “tract” voting.

• Elimination of fee assessments for “tracts.”

• Creation of staggered terms for Board members.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis of Key Issues

1. Validity of the Executive Session

The Petitioner challenged the Board’s decision to pass the resolution during a closed executive session, alleging improper notice and an improper subject for a closed meeting.

• Notice Requirements: The ALJ found that neither A.R.S. § 33-1804(C) nor the Association’s Bylaws specifically require notice of an executive session held in conjunction with a properly noticed regular meeting. Furthermore, failure to provide notice does not inherently invalidate Board actions.

• Subject Matter: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) allows executive sessions for “legal advice from an attorney.” The Board argued the session was intended to discuss pending litigation and future legal strategies. The ALJ ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove the Board acted outside its authority by discussing the resolution in this context, as it was reasonably related to avoiding future legal entanglements.

2. Authority to Interpret the Declaration

The Board relied on Section 14.01 of the Declaration, which grants it the “exclusive right to construe and interpret” the provisions of the Declaration.

• The “Interpretation” vs. “Nullification” Standard: The ALJ determined that the authority to “interpret” (to clarify meaning) or “construe” (to analyze grammatical structure) implies that the text is not already self-explanatory.

• Implicit Limits: The ALJ ruled that if the Board could assign any meaning to any provision, they could essentially nullify any part of the Declaration. This was deemed contrary to the intent of the drafters. The decision noted that the Board cannot use Section 14.01 to “ascribe a different meaning” to clear, self-evident provisions.

3. Ambiguity of Section 11.02

The Association argued that Section 11.02 was ambiguous because it included the phrase “at a meeting,” suggesting the 80% threshold applied only to those present.

• The “Cardinal Rule” of Construction: The ALJ applied the principle that every part of a contract must be given effect.

• The Phrase “In the Association”: The ALJ found that the Association’s interpretation rendered the phrase “in the Association” superfluous. If the 80% requirement only applied to those at a meeting, there would have been no need for the qualifying language “in the Association.”

• Conclusion on Clarity: The ALJ found Section 11.02 to be “not ambiguous on its face.” Its meaning was clear to all parties, including the Board, prior to the 2006 resolution.

4. Practical Necessity vs. Contractual Reliance

The Association argued that the high voting threshold (80% of all members) made it virtually impossible to update the Declaration to reflect modern laws and circumstances, citing four failed attempts since 2005.

• ALJ Finding: While acknowledging that associations should be wary of overly strenuous amendment requirements, the ALJ emphasized that the Declaration is a contract upon which all 1,322 members have a right to rely. The Board’s interpretation was a “dramatic change” that allowed a tiny fraction of the membership (8.01%) to alter the contract governing the entire community.

——————————————————————————–

Secondary Issue: Mailing List Formats

The Petitioner also alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 because the Association initially provided the membership mailing list in a “spreadsheet” format rather than the “label” format requested.

• Ruling: The ALJ found no violation. Neither state law nor community documents require the Association to provide records in a specific format, only that they be made “reasonably available.”

——————————————————————————–

Final Order and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

1. Vacation of Resolution: The Board’s Resolution of October 16, 2006, interpreting Section 11.02, is vacated.

2. Vacation of Amendments: All amendments to the Declaration passed after the October 2006 resolution that were based on the 80%-of-voters threshold (rather than 80% of total membership) are vacated.

3. Financial Restitution: The Respondent is ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for the filing fee in the amount of $2,000.00.

Decision Status: This order is the final administrative decision and is not subject to a request for rehearing under A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A).






Study Guide – 07F-H067029-BFS


Study Guide: Nancy Waugaman v. Troon Village Master Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing between Nancy Waugaman and the Troon Village Master Association (No. 07F-H067029-BFS). It examines the legal disputes regarding community governance, the interpretation of association declarations, and the limits of a Board of Directors’ authority under Arizona law.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in two to three sentences based on the source context provided.

1. What was the central dispute regarding the amendment of the Troon Village Declaration?

2. How did the Board’s Resolution on October 16, 2006, change the voting threshold for amendments?

3. What was the numerical impact of the Board’s new interpretation of the voting requirements?

4. Under what legal justification did the Board claim they could meet in an executive session?

5. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding the notice of the executive session?

6. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rule on the legality of the Board’s executive session?

7. What authority did Article 14, Section 14.01 of the Declaration grant to the Board?

8. How did the ALJ use the principle from Aldous v. Intermountain Building and Loan Association of Arizona to evaluate Section 11.02?

9. What was the Petitioner’s complaint regarding the Association’s mailing list, and how did the ALJ respond?

10. What were the three primary components of the ALJ’s final Order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. What was the central dispute regarding the amendment of the Troon Village Declaration? The dispute centered on whether the Board of Directors had the legal authority to unilaterally reinterpret the Declaration’s voting requirements. The Board attempted to lower the threshold for passing amendments, which Nancy Waugaman challenged as a violation of state statutes and community documents.

2. How did the Board’s Resolution on October 16, 2006, change the voting threshold for amendments? The Resolution interpreted Section 11.02 to mean that amendments only required an affirmative vote of 80% of members voting at a meeting, rather than 80% of the entire membership. This interpretation allowed amendments to pass based on a much smaller pool of participating members.

3. What was the numerical impact of the Board’s new interpretation of the voting requirements? The interpretation effectively reduced the number of affirmative votes required to change the Declaration from a minimum of 1,058 votes (80% of all 1,322 members) to a minimum of 106 votes. This lower number represented 80% of the 132 members needed to constitute a 10% quorum.

4. Under what legal justification did the Board claim they could meet in an executive session? The Board claimed the executive session was convened to discuss pending litigation with its attorneys and to obtain legal advice on how to avoid future legal problems. A.R.S. §33-1804A(1) allows for closed sessions specifically for “legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.”

5. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding the notice of the executive session? Petitioner Nancy Waugaman argued that the meeting was not properly noticed under A.R.S. §33-1804(C) because the public notice for the regular meeting failed to mention the executive session occurring immediately prior. She contended that the lack of notice and opportunity for membership discussion invalidated the Resolution passed during that session.

6. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rule on the legality of the Board’s executive session? The ALJ ruled that there was no specific requirement in the governing documents or A.R.S. Title 33 to provide notice of an executive session. Furthermore, the judge found that the discussion was reasonably related to pending litigation and legal advice, falling within the scope of authority granted by A.R.S. §33-1804A(1).

7. What authority did Article 14, Section 14.01 of the Declaration grant to the Board? This section granted the Board the “exclusive right to construe and interpret the provisions of this Declaration.” It specified that, absent a court adjudication to the contrary, the Board’s interpretation would be final, conclusive, and binding on all persons and property bound by the Declaration.

8. How did the ALJ use the principle from Aldous v. Intermountain Building and Loan Association of Arizona to evaluate Section 11.02? The ALJ applied the “cardinal rule” that every part of a contract must be given effect, noting that the phrase “in the Association” would be rendered superfluous under the Board’s interpretation. To give the phrase meaning, the judge concluded the drafters intended that 80% of the entire membership must vote affirmatively for an amendment.

9. What was the Petitioner’s complaint regarding the Association’s mailing list, and how did the ALJ respond? The Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. §33-1805 by providing the mailing list in a spreadsheet format rather than a “label” format. The ALJ dismissed this, stating that the law only requires records to be “reasonably available” for examination and does not mandate that the Association provide information in a specific format requested by a member.

10. What were the three primary components of the ALJ’s final Order? The ALJ ordered the vacation of the Board’s October 16, 2006, Resolution and any subsequent amendments to the Declaration based on that Resolution. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for her $2,000.00 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: These questions are designed for in-depth analysis. Use the facts and legal reasoning provided in the case to develop your arguments.

1. The Limits of Interpretation: Analyze the ALJ’s reasoning regarding the definitions of “construe” and “interpret.” How does the judge distinguish between a legitimate interpretation of an ambiguous provision and an unauthorized “nullification” of a clear provision?

2. Contractual Reliance vs. Community Efficiency: The Board argued that without their Resolution, amending the Declaration was “virtually impossible,” hindering the community’s ability to adapt. Contrast this argument with the ALJ’s focus on the Declaration as a contract upon which “each of those individual owners had a right to rely.”

3. Statutory Compliance in Executive Sessions: Discuss the tension between A.R.S. §33-1804A (which allows for private legal advice) and the general requirement for open meetings in planned communities. At what point does a board’s use of an executive session become an invalid “guise” to shield business from membership scrutiny?

4. Grammatical Construction in Legal Documents: Detail the linguistic analysis the ALJ used to determine that Section 11.02 was not ambiguous. Specifically, explain why the inclusion of the phrase “in the Association” was the deciding factor against the Board’s interpretation of “total voting power.”

5. The Role of the Administrative Law Judge: Based on this decision, evaluate the extent of an ALJ’s power to intervene in the internal governance of a homeowners association. What specific actions was the ALJ able to take, and what legal standards (such as “preponderance of the evidence”) guided these decisions?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. §33-1804

The Arizona Revised Statute governing board meetings in planned communities, including notice requirements and the criteria for executive sessions.

A.R.S. §33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute requiring that financial and other records of an association be made reasonably available for examination by members.

Articles of Incorporation

One of the primary governing documents of the Association, establishing it as a legal entity.

Bylaws

The rules adopted by an association to govern its internal administration and management.

Construe

To analyze the grammatical structure of a clause or sentence to determine the use and function of each word; to explain or interpret meaning.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the foundational contract governing a planned community.

Executive Session

A closed-door meeting of a Board of Directors, permitted under specific circumstances such as discussing legal advice or pending litigation.

Interpret

To give or make clear the meaning of something that is not self-explanatory or self-evident.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a petition or legal action; in this case, Nancy Waugaman.

Quorum

The minimum number of members (in this case, 10% of total voting power) required to be present at a meeting to legally conduct business.

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action is brought; in this case, Troon Village Master Association.

Tract Voting

A voting system (later challenged) where votes and fees were allotted to associations based on specific tracts of land rather than individual improved lots.

Vacate

To cancel or render a previous legal action, resolution, or amendment null and void.






Blog Post – 07F-H067029-BFS


When “Interpretation” Becomes Rewriting: 5 Crucial Lessons from the Troon Village Legal Battle

For most homeowners, the governing documents of a Homeowners Association (HOA) are the “fine print” of neighborhood life—a thick stack of papers signed at closing and rarely revisited. However, these documents are the legal bedrock of the community, acting as a binding contract between the association and its members.

A recent masterclass in board overreach involving the Troon Village Master Association and homeowner Nancy Waugaman serves as a stark cautionary tale. When the Troon Village Board attempted to “interpret” its way around strict voting requirements, the resulting legal battle exposed a critical tension: the Board’s desire for administrative efficiency versus the homeowners’ vested contractual rights. As an HOA governance specialist, I see this frequently—boards treating their Declarations as living documents they can mold at will. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), however, recently dismantled that logic in a ruling that every homeowner should keep in their back pocket.

Here are five crucial lessons from this landmark dispute.

1. The 90% Math Trick: How 1,058 Votes Became 106

The core of this dispute centered on a bold piece of mathematical sleight of hand. Section 11.02 of the Troon Village Declaration required an affirmative vote of “at least eighty percent (80%) of the total voting power in the Association” to pass an amendment. In a community of 1,322 members, that threshold is high: 1,058 homeowners must agree to any change.

Claiming this was too difficult to achieve, the Board passed a resolution to “interpret” the math differently. They argued that the 80% threshold should apply only to those who actually cast a ballot at a meeting, provided a quorum was met. Since the bylaws defined a quorum as just 10% of the membership (132 people), the Board’s new math meant that as few as 106 people could change the rules for everyone. As the Board’s resolution stated:

This interpretation effectively stripped away 90% of the required voting power, allowing a tiny fraction of the community—approximately 8%—to alter the governing documents for the other 92%.

2. The “Ambiguity” Trap and the Dictionary Shield

To justify this move, the Board invoked Article 14, Section 14.01 of the Declaration, which gave them the “exclusive right to construe and interpret” the provisions of the document. They argued the phrase “at a meeting” made the voting requirement ambiguous.

The Court was not impressed. The Judge utilized a dictionary-based analysis to remind the Board what “interpret” actually means. Relying on Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the Judge noted that to “construe” is “to analyze the grammatical structure of a clause,” and to “interpret” is to “give the meaning” or “make clear.”

The logic is simple: you cannot “clarify” something that is already self-evident. By looking at the plain language, the Judge found that “total voting power in the Association” clearly meant the entire membership. The ruling established a vital safeguard: if a Board can simply “interpret” clear language out of existence, the entire Declaration becomes a meaningless piece of paper. As the Judge reasoned:

3. The Executive Session Shield: A Legal Blind Spot

Perhaps most concerning was how this resolution was passed. The Board met in a closed “executive session” with attorneys, ostensibly to discuss a separate, pending lawsuit. Under the guise of receiving “legal advice” regarding that litigation, they passed the voting resolution behind closed doors.

This highlights a significant “blind spot” for homeowners in state statutes. While A.R.S. §33-1804A allows boards to meet privately for legal advice, the Judge noted that these exceptions should not be used to shield important business from membership scrutiny.

However, there is a catch: under A.R.S. §33-1804C, the failure to provide specific notice of an executive session does not, by itself, invalidate the Board’s action. This means that while the Board’s logic was eventually overturned on its merits, the act of passing major policy shifts in private is often technically shielded from procedural invalidation. It is a reminder that transparency is rarely volunteered; it must be demanded.

4. Governing Documents are Contracts, Not Suggestions

The Board’s primary defense was one of “efficiency.” They argued that the high voting threshold made it “virtually impossible” to update the Declaration, citing four failed attempts to pass amendments despite what they called “overwhelming community support.”

In the world of HOA governance, “efficiency” is often just shorthand for “avoiding accountability.” The Judge’s ruling was a victory for the law of contracts, asserting that the 1,322 members have a “right to rely” on the terms of the Declaration. Because the language of the voting requirement was clear, it created a vested contractual right.

This takeaway is essential: an HOA is not a laboratory for a Board’s social or administrative experiments. When a homeowner buys into a community, they are signing a contract. A board’s preference for a more “workable” format cannot override the bargained-for rights of the individual owners.

5. “Workable Format” Does Not Mean Your Preferred Format

While Petitioner Waugaman won the war, she lost a minor skirmish regarding transparency that serves as a reality check for community activists. She complained that when she requested the Association’s mailing list, she was provided a spreadsheet rather than the “label format” she preferred for her own mailings.

The Judge clarified that under A.R.S. §33-1805, associations must make records “reasonably available” and provide photocopies. However, they are generally not required to perform extra administrative labor to format data for a petitioner’s specific needs. The takeaway? If the Board gives you the data in a standard digital format like a spreadsheet, they have likely met their legal obligation, even if it adds extra steps to your advocacy efforts.

——————————————————————————–

A Final Thought for the Modern Homeowner

The Troon Village battle ended with a decisive series of “hard wins” for the homeowners. The Judge ordered the Board’s resolution vacated, invalidated every amendment passed under the illegal “106-vote” rule, and ordered the Association to reimburse Waugaman’s $2,000 filing fee.

This case serves as a powerful reminder that while Board members may hold the keys to the meeting room, they do not hold the power to rewrite your contract in the dark.

If your Board claims the “exclusive right to interpret” your community’s laws, how much of your contract is actually set in stone, and how much is merely waiting for the Board’s next “interpretation”?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy Waugaman (Petitioner)
    Also listed as Nancy J. Waugaman

Respondent Side

  • Carrie Smith (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Also listed as Carrie H. Smith
  • Jason Smith (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Wood, PLC

Neutral Parties

  • Michael K. Carroll (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Agency Official)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed as H/C
  • Joyce Kesterman (Agency Contact)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety