Case Details

– Petitioner: Darryl Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes
– Respondent: Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (the HOA)
– Case Number: Not provided
– Date and Time of Hearing: January 26, 2021, March 3, 2021, and July 14, 2021
– Judge’s Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
– Whether the Petitioner was Successful: No, the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent was deemed to be the prevailing party.

Case Description

This administrative hearing involved a dispute between Darryl Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes (the Petitioners) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (the Respondent). The case centered around allegations of a violation of the community’s CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) due to the installation of an unapproved floodlight by the Petitioners.

The proceedings were initiated when Michelle Mooney, a neighboring homeowner and a member of the HOA Board of Directors, filed a complaint against the Petitioners, asserting that an installed floodlight on their residence was both unapproved and visible from public areas. Following an inspection and photographic evidence supporting the complaint, the HOA issued a letter on May 27, 2020, notifying the Petitioners of the alleged violation, specifically referencing Article III, Section 3.10 of the HOA’s CC&Rs. This article mandates that no modifications to property, including the construction of structures or installations, can occur without the prior approval of the Architectural Control Committee.

The Petitioners contested the HOA’s ruling, leading them to request a hearing, which was conducted in open session on July 9, 2020. During this initial hearing, an agreement was made between the Petitioners and the affected neighbors to try and resolve the lighting issues. However, subsequent hearings revealed that a resolution was not achieved, prompting the HOA Board to ultimately deny the Petitioners’ appeal on August 18, 2020.

In response to this denial, the Petitioners submitted a four-issue petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on October 20, 2020. The petition alleged the HOA had violated various statutes and provisions of the CC&Rs relating to proper communication in violation notices and implementation of enforcement actions.

Three hearing dates were held to review the Petitioners’ appeal regarding the HOA’s actions, specifically addressing whether the proper protocols were followed in notifying and processing the alleged violation. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge found that the HOA had complied with relevant statutes when it issued the original notice and conducted the hearings. The Judge concluded that the evidence presented showed that the HOA had provided adequate information regarding the alleged violations and that the actions taken were within the scope of the CC&Rs.

As a result, the Petitioners’ claims were dismissed, confirming the HOA’s authority and actions as valid, and designating the HOA as the prevailing party in this dispute. The order by the Administrative Law Judge was issued on August 24, 2021, and is binding unless a rehearing is granted within a stipulated timeframe.

Legal Advice & Recommendations

In the administrative hearing regarding the nuisance alleged by the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (HOA), the petitioner, Darryl Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes, lost the case primarily due to a lack of substantial evidence proving that the HOA violated the relevant Arizona statutes and its own CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions).

Analysis Of The Petitioner’S Loss

1. **Failure To Establish Violations**

– According to the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) conclusions, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E). The evidence presented indicated that the HOA had fulfilled the requirements of the statute by properly notifying the petitioner about the alleged violation, which included the necessary information outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)(1)-(4). Since the HOA complied with these requirements, A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) did not apply.

2. **Appeal Process Following Cc&Rs**

– The HOA’s appeal process was deemed sufficient, as the petitioner’s alleged violations were addressed in open session, and the board’s subsequent executive session was justified for obtaining legal advice about the appeal. This follows A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(1), which permits board discussion in a manner that ensures confidentiality when consulting legal counsel.

3. **Scope Of The Cc&Rs**

– The ALJ ruled that the installation of an unapproved floodlight fell within the realm of Article III, Section 3.10 of the CC&Rs, which states that prior approval is necessary for any alterations or installations that can be deemed structures or changes.

Recommendations For The Petitioner

1. **Documentation And Evidence**

– To strengthen the case, the petitioner should have compiled more substantial evidence indicating the legitimacy of the floodlight installation under the CC&Rs or presenting clear reasons for why the HOA’s letter might be faulty or inapplicable.

2. **Clarity In Communication**

– Clear and prompt communication with the HOA, in formal written responses, would have provided a robust defense to the allegations against them, ensuring all interactions complied with the procedural requirements laid out in the CC&Rs and Arizona statutes.

3. **Seek Legal Counsel Early**

– Engaging legal counsel earlier in the process may have allowed for a better understanding of the procedural nuances and potentially aided in negotiating with the HOA before escalating to a formal hearing.

4. **Mediation Or Alternative Dispute Resolution (Adr)**

– Before pursuing formal legal channels, the petitioner could consider mediation with the HOA to resolve disputes amicably. ADR is often a less adversarial and more flexible way to settle disagreements.

Advice For Similar Cases

– **Familiarity With Cc&Rs And Statutes**

Homeowners must familiarize themselves with both the CC&Rs governing their community and the relevant Arizona statutes and ensure strict compliance when making alterations to their property.

– **Engagement With Community Management**

Regular engagement with the HOA management can help identify potential issues before they escalate. Open communication lines may also lead to informal resolutions without the need for further legal intervention.

– **Budget For Potential Legal Fees**

Homeowners should plan for potential legal costs associated with disputes involving their HOA to avoid unexpected financial strain during administrative hearings or legal proceedings.

In conclusion, while the petitioner lost this case, it underscored the importance of compliance with both the HOA’s rules and Arizona statutes. Clear communication and a thorough understanding of procedural requirements would significantly benefit homeowners involved in similar disputes.