Case Details
– Petitioner: Robert Tomisak
– Respondent: Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
– Case Number: Not provided in the text
– Date and Time of Hearing: July 9, 2020
– Judge’s Name: Sondra J. Vanella
– Whether the petitioner was successful: No
Case Description
The case involves a dispute between the petitioner, Robert Tomisak, a member and owner of condominium unit 1902 in the Arrowhead Lakes condominium development in Glendale, Arizona, and the respondent, Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, represented by property manager Terri Troy. The crux of the matter stems from a single-issue petition filed by the petitioner on April 15, 2020, claiming that the respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), bylaws, and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by refusing to provide him access to the membership register, specifically requesting email addresses of unit owners.
The petitioner had emailed the respondent’s representative earlier on March 11, 2020, requesting an electronic copy of the Owner’s Roster, citing the Arizona Condominium Act. In response, the property manager cited regulations concerning personal information and stated that while the association could provide names and addresses of unit owners, email addresses were not included in the membership register due to privacy concerns.
During the hearing conducted on July 9, 2020, the petitioner argued that email addresses are not personal information and contended that the refusal to provide such information violated the provisions mentioned above. The property manager reiterated the association’s stance that email addresses were considered personal records and were consequently withheld from the register.
Ultimately, the administrative law judge, Sondra J. Vanella, concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate that the respondent had violated any statutory provisions or governing documents, as there was no evidence that the respondent was required to create a document containing email addresses, especially when such a document did not exist. Thus, the petition was dismissed, and no action was required from the respondent.
The decision, made on July 17, 2020, was binding unless a request for rehearing was filed within 30 days. The case highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding privacy issues and access to member information in condominium associations.
Legal Advice & Recommendations
Analyzing the case presented, it is clear that the petitioner, Robert Tomisak, lost the case regarding his request for the membership register, specifically the email addresses of unit owners.
Why Petitioner Lost
1. Burden of Proof: The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the respondent violated the law or the governing documents of the HOA (A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)). The administrative law judge concluded that the petitioner failed to prove that the association had breached any obligations since he was requesting information (email addresses) that no longer existed in the membership register.
2. Existence of Records: The judge noted that the membership register containing email addresses did not exist as it had been modified in 2018 to exclude email information. A.R.S. § 33-1258(B) specifies that personal, health, or financial records can be withheld, and the court sided with the association in concluding that email addresses fall under the category of personal records.
3. Lack of Legal Precedent: The petitioner presented no compelling legal authority to challenge the association’s interpretation of what constituted “personal information” under the law. His reliance on case law from California was not sufficient in the context of Arizona law.
4. Statutory Interpretation: The respondent’s argument that providing email addresses constituted a violation of personal privacy was deemed valid by the judge. Thus, even though the petitioner had access to addresses, the court affirmed the association’s stance against providing email addresses.
Recommendations For The Petitioner
1. Clarify Requests: In the future, the petitioner should ensure his requests are clear and specific about what information he needs. If attempting to collect personal information, he should be prepared to provide legal rationale for why that information should be released.
2. Support Requests with Legal Precedents: It would be beneficial for the petitioner to research and cite relevant Arizona case law or legal standards pertaining to privacy and ownership of personal information in similar settings to strengthen his claim.
3. Document Communication: Keeping detailed records and communication with the association can be helpful, especially in establishing a timeline of requests and their responses.
4. Consider Alternative Routes: The petitioner could consider proposing a privacy agreement among owners that would allow sharing of information like email addresses while still protecting owner privacy, thereby easing the association’s concerns.
Advice For Similar Cases
– Understand Governance Documents and Relevant Laws: Owners should familiarize themselves with their associations CC&Rs and bylaws, as well as relevant state law (A.R.S. Title 33). Awareness of existing policies will equip them to make informed requests.
– Feasibility of Requests: Before filing a petition, ensure that the request is feasible based on the association’s archived information. Submit a request only if the information is likely to exist.
– Utilize Mediation if Possible: Before resorting to formal legal processes, consider mediation or informal negotiation with the association to resolve concerns amicably.
In conclusion, while this particular petition was dismissed due to the lack of evidence and the non-existence of the requested records, the recommendations provided can help individuals in similar situations more effectively communicate their requests and navigate the complexities of HOA relations.