Case Details
– Petitioner: John H. Kelly
– Respondent: Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
– Case Number: Not specified in the provided document.
– Date and Time of Hearing: August 29, 2019, at 1:00 PM
– Judge’s Name: Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
– Petitioner Successful: No
Case Description
The case involves a dispute between John H. Kelly, a condominium owner and member of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (the “Association”), and the Association itself. The case was heard due to a petition filed by Kelly, alleging that the Association had failed to convene a special meeting to consider the removal of a board member, which he contended was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1243.
On April 29, 2019, Kelly submitted a petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, claiming he had collected the requisite number of signatures to compel the Association to call a special meeting. Arizona law requires that for an association with fewer than 1,000 members, at least twenty-five percent of the eligible votes must sign a petition to initiate a special meeting concerning the removal of a board member. In this case, the Association consists of 84 units, and thus needed at least 21 valid signatures.
Kelly argued that he had collected 36 signatures, which he believed were sufficient to meet the threshold. However, the Association responded on May 28, 2019, denying the validity of these signatures, contending they were either from ineligible voters—such as renters, or Unit Owners who were delinquent on dues—or represented multiple signatures from the same unit.
During the hearing, Kelly testified that he believed he had submitted at least 23 valid signatures, including one signature from a member who owned multiple units. The Association’s witness, Saundra Garcia, countered that after reviewing the submitted signatures, only 13 were considered valid based on the criteria set forth in the Association’s Bylaws.
The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, determined that the burden of proof rested with the Petitioner, Kelly. The Judge found that despite the submissions, Kelly failed to provide the necessary signatures from eligible unit owners as required by the Association’s governing documents.
Consequently, the Judge concluded that the Association did not violate the statute, and Kelly’s petition was denied. The decision further stipulated that this outcome is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days from the service of the Order. Ultimately, the decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to specific legal requirements in governance of homeowners’ associations, particularly the verification of voters’ eligibility in the petition process.
Analysis Of Findings
In the case involving John H. Kelly (the Petitioner) versus the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (the Respondent), the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy the burden of proof to establish that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) § 33-1243 concerning the calling of a special meeting to remove a board member.
1. Legal Framework
– Under ARS § 33-1243(H)(4), in an association with one thousand or fewer members, a special meeting must be called upon the submission of a petition signed by at least 25% of the eligible votes in the association. In this case, that amounted to at least 21 valid signatures given that Cortez Canyon had 84 units.
– The Association’s Bylaws specified that signatures must come from “eligible Unit Owners,” which means owners in good standing regarding dues and fees.
– While The Petitioner Claimed To Have Collected 36 Signatures, The Judge Found That Only 13 Of These Were Valid. The Reasons For Rejection Included
– Many signatures were from renters or occupants, not from Unit Owners.
– Multiple signatures could not be counted from a single unit.
– Several Unit Owners were ineligible due to being in arrears.
Conclusion
The Petitioner lost because he could not demonstrate that he had collected the requisite number of valid signatures from eligible voters as defined by the Association’s Bylaws and Arizona law.
—
Recommendations For The Petitioner
To Improve His Chances In A Similar Case In The Future, The Petitioner Could Take The Following Steps
1. Verifying Signatures Before Submission:
– Ensure that all signatures collected are from eligible Unit Owners. This can be done by checking the Association’s records or directly verifying with neighbors.
2. Educating Participants on Eligibility:
– Provide information to those being approached to sign the petition about the eligibility criteria, emphasizing the need for valid signatures from owners in good standing.
3. Documenting Signature Collection:
– Keep meticulous records of signatures collected, including the name, unit number, and confirmation of eligibility (such as proof of ownership or payment status), which could assist in the event of a dispute.
4. Consulting with Legal Counsel:
– Prior to launching a petition, consulting with a knowledgeable HOA attorney could clarify the rules and procedures, minimizing the risk of errors.
5. Following Up with Management:
– After submission, the Petitioner should follow up with the Association or the management company to confirm that the petition is being processed and be prepared to address any issues that arise related to the validity of the signatures.
—
Advice For Similar Cases
For Future Petitioners
– Understand the governing documents of the HOA and familiarize yourself with the specific voting and petitioning requirements.
– Keep open lines of communication with other homeowners; transparency can often lead to gathering support and addressing issues before escalating them to formal hearings.
– If facing opposition from the Board, consider rallying community members to express their concerns collectively, making the call for a special meeting more robust.
Ultimately, success in such cases hinges on thorough preparation and adherence to the specified legal requirements.