Case Details

– Petitioner: Gregory L. Czekaj
– Respondent: Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
– Case Number: Not provided in the document.
– Date and Time of Hearing: Rehearings held on December 10, 2019, and March 5, 2020.
– Judge’s Name: Kay Abramsohn
– Whether the Petitioner was Successful: No, the petitioner was not successful.

Case Description

Gregory L. Czekaj, the petitioner, filed three separate complaints against the Colonia Del Rey Homeowners Association (HOA) with the Arizona Department of Real Estate concerning violations of homeowners’ association laws and internal rules. Czekaj’s complaints primarily focused on record access issues, an allegedly invalid fee increase due to the use of proxy voting, and improper notice of a meeting regarding amendments to the HOA bylaws.

Complaint One alleged that the HOA failed to provide requested documents as mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1805. Czekaj argued that despite multiple requests for HOA records dating back to April 2018, he was still not given complete access, particularly to the HOA’s Articles of Incorporation. The HOA contended that they had adequately responded to his requests and that any further document requests were burdensome and thus not required. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the HOA had indeed complied with statutory obligations and was deemed the prevailing party.

Complaint Two challenged a $5 fee increase approved during the HOA’s May 6, 2017 Annual Meeting, arguing that the increase was invalid as it relied on a proxy vote that the petitioner claimed was prohibited, referencing both HOA rules and A.R.S. § 33-1812(A). The ALJ found that although the proxy vote was initially counted, it was subsequently determined to be invalid, and the majority of votes cast (5 in favor, 1 against) still met the quorum requirements stipulated in the HOA’s rules.

Complaint Three focused on the alleged failure of the HOA to properly notify its members about a meeting held to discuss amendments to the HOA bylaws, arguing that notices sent out were not delivered within the required timeframe as per A.R.S. § 33-1804(B). The ALJ ruled that the HOA had fulfilled its obligations by mailing the notices appropriately and that the statute does not require that members receive notices within a certain time frame, merely that the notices be sent in compliance with statutory requirements.

After reviewing all three complaints in hearings held on December 10, 2019, and March 5, 2020, the ALJ determined that none of the complaints were substantiated enough to require action against the HOA. The order was issued stating that the HOA was the prevailing party in all three complaints, thereby dismissing the allegations of wrongdoing asserted by Czekaj. Consequently, Czekaj was ordered to bear his own filing costs. The ALJ’s decision was communicated via an official order dated March 25, 2020, which detailed the outcomes of the hearings and the concluding findings related to each complaint.

Analysis Of The Case

Petitioner’S Outcomes

The petitioner, Gregory L. Czekaj, lost all three complaints against the Colonia Del Rey HOA. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Kay Abramsohn, found that Czekaj was unable to successfully prove any of the alleged violations outlined in his complaints under relevant Arizona statutes.

Czekaj Claimed That The Hoa Violated A.R.S. § 33-1805, Which Requires That Financial And Other Records Of The Association Be Made Reasonably Available. However, The Alj Concluded That

– The HOA asked Czekaj to clarify his burdensome records request, which later received a timely response.
– There was no evidence demonstrating that the HOA refused to provide records.
– The HOA demonstrated that it provided access to the requested documents in compliance with state law.

Outcome: Petitioner lost because he could not demonstrate that the HOA violated the statute.

In This Complaint, Czekaj Argued That A $5 Fee Increase Was Invalid Due To Improper Proxy Voting. The Alj Concluded That

– Although an initial proxy vote was mistakenly accepted, it was not counted in the final tally confirming the fee increase.
– The 5-1 vote in favor of the fee increase met the required two-thirds threshold of the votes cast.

Outcome: Petitioner lost because the vote was ultimately valid even after considering the proxy’s exclusion.

Czekaj Challenged The Validity Of A Meeting Notice Because He Alleged That It Was Not Received In Time. The Alj Found That

– The HOA mailed the notice more than ten days before the meeting, complying with A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).
– The statute does not mandate that members receive the notice within that timeframe but rather that it is “caused to be sent” within that period. A failure to receive the notice does not invalidate the subsequent actions taken in the meeting.

Outcome: Petitioner lost because the HOA fulfilled the notice requirements set forth in the statute.

Recommendations For The Petitioner

1. Clear Requests: Czekaj’s issues partially stemmed from making broad and unclear requests for records. Moving forward, it would be beneficial for him to specify exactly what documentation he seeks and to follow up with concrete, time-defined requests.

2. Understand HOA Governance: Engage with the governing documents of the HOA more deeply. A better grasp of the HOA’s bylaws, CC&Rs, and applicable ARS statutes could help formulate arguments based on the procedural framework.

3. Timeliness: Ensure that requests, whether for documents or subpoenas, are made well in advance of meetings or hearings. This includes checking whether prior communications have been clear and confirming receipt.

4. Legal Counsel: Engage with an attorney experienced in HOA matters to avoid procedural missteps and to better navigate the complexities of hearings and evidence presentation, especially concerning statutory requirements.

5. Keeping Records: Maintain thorough records of all communications with the HOA, including requests for documents and responses received. This documentation can support claims of non-compliance or procedural violations.

Conclusion

The petitioner lost his case primarily due to an inability to substantiate his claims that the HOA had violated specific provisions under ARS. His outcomes illustrate the importance of clarity, an understanding of the procedural landscape, and the ability to demonstrate violations with competent evidence. For individuals engaged in similar disputes with HOAs, careful adherence to legal standards, proactive communication, and potentially retaining legal support can significantly assist in navigating these complex matters.