Case Details

– Petitioner: Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust (represented by Steven Trezza, Esq.)
– Respondent: Haciendas Del Conde Association (represented by Sharon Briggs, Esq.)
– Case Number: Not provided
– Date and Time of Hearing: November 13, 2020
– Judge’s Name: Adam D. Stone
– Petitioner Successful: No

Case Description

The case involves a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust (Petitioner) and Haciendas Del Conde Association (Respondent), regarding allegations of violations of the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs), specifically concerning the enforcement of a setback requirement for a carport constructed by the Petitioner.

On January 27, 2020, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, claiming that the Respondent had violated the CCRs, particularly section 21(m), which mandates a 10-foot setback for structures from property lines. The specifics of the hearing focused on whether the CCRs had legally enforceable setback language, the reasonableness of requiring the Petitioner to relocate the carport to meet this requirement, the legitimacy of a potential selective enforcement defense, and whether the CCRs granted any easements or variances concerning the carport.

During the hearing held over Google Meet on November 13, 2020, the Petitioner presented testimonies from Steven Trezza and Philip Rosenberg, a general contractor who assisted with the zoning application for the carport. Trezza argued that the CCRs’ section 21(m) was not validly adopted and that the vote on the 2017 CCR amendments, under which the setback condition was presumably implemented, was flawed. He claimed that he only became aware of the 1993 amendment that introduced the 10-foot setback requirement during the course of this dispute.

The Respondent countered with testimonies from its Board President, Brad Johns, and Secretary/Treasurer Philip Worcester, who argued that the approval of the CCRs and subsequent enforcement actions were duly conducted and justified. They indicated that the Petitioner failed to seek approval prior to the carport’s construction—a critical point raised during testimony, emphasizing that other homeowners had been granted retroactive approvals, indicating no discriminatory enforcement.

Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone concluded that the CCRs did indeed contain enforceable setback provisions and ruled that the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the invalidity of section 21(m) and potential selective enforcement did not hold. The Judge found that the Petitioner had not followed the required protocols for obtaining prior approval, which directly contributed to the predicament concerning the carport.

As a result, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the denial of the Petition on all issues, formally determining that the Respondent prevailed and that the civil penalties were inapplicable. The ruling highlighted the significance of adherence to community governing documents and reinforced the validity of covenants established by homeowner associations.

Analysis Of The Case

In the case presented above, the petitioner, Shannon Lee Trezza, represented by her trustee Steven Trezza, sought to challenge the enforcement of setback requirements as defined in the Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA) CCRs. The main arguments revolved around the enforceability of Section 21(m) of the CCRs, claims of selective enforcement, the petitioner’s alleged lack of knowledge of the CCRs, and whether an easement or variance existed for the carport constructed by the petitioner.

Outcome Explanation

The Administrative Law Judge (Alj) Ruled Against The Petitioner, Essentially Finding As Follows

1. Legally Enforceable Setback Language: The ALJ concluded that the setback requirements contained in Section 21(m) of the CCRs were indeed enforceable. The ALJ reasoned that the HDCA was entitled to enforce restrictions that may be more stringent than local zoning laws (e.g., Pima County code).

2. Properly Passed CCRs: The ALJ determined that the vote to adopt the 2017 CCRs was valid. The argument that Section 21(m) should have been “redlined” was insufficient by itself to invalidate this. The members of the association had the opportunity to vote and could have objected at that time if they disagreed.

3. No Selective Enforcement: The testimony provided highlighted that other residents who similarly failed to obtain prior approval were also allowed a chance to cure their situation. Thus, the ALJ did not see evidence of unfair treatment.

4. No Affirmative Defense or Easements Established: The judge found that the arguments related to the 1993 amendments and claims of an easement or variance under Paragraph 33 did not hold merit, as no convincing evidence was presented to support such claims.

5. Costs Were the Petitioner’s Responsibility: The ALJ noted that it was the petitioner’s failure to seek prior approval that led to the current situation, hence any associated costs were a result of the petitioner’s actions, not the HOA’s.

Recommendations For The Petitioner

1. Obtain Approval Before Construction: The most significant misstep was the petitioner’s failure to seek prior approval before constructing the carport. In future cases, it is paramount to work closely with the HOA and obtain necessary approvals and permits before beginning construction to avoid complications.

2. Review CCRs Thoroughly: Future petitioners should ensure they are thoroughly aware of all CCRs and amendments before purchasing property or making alterations. Engaging a real estate attorney to review these documents prior to purchase might prevent misunderstandings.

3. Document Communication with HOA: Maintain records of all communications and attempts to secure approvals or clarifications from the HOA. This documentation could prove helpful in demonstrating compliance or good faith efforts in future disputes.

4. Legal Representation: In complex cases involving potential amendments to CCRs and enforcement disputes, securing legal advice upfront can be beneficial. An experienced attorney can navigate issues such as statutory requirements for community governance and assist in interpreting CCRs.

5. Challenge Procedures for CCR Amendments Early: If a homeowner believes amendments or procedural changes to CCRs were improperly undertaken, it is wise to act sooner rather than later to contest those changes, as such claims may be subject to statute of limitations.

6. Consider CAM Exemptions or Variances: If the HOA rules are particularly restrictive or burdensome, exploring whether exemptions or variances apply under local law or HOA rules at the outset may present viable alternatives.

Conclusion And Similar Cases

In summary, the petitioner lost due to substantive failures to adhere to HOA processes and an insufficient understanding of applicable laws and regulations. Other homeowners facing similar challenges should focus on proactive engagement with their associations, understanding governance structures, and obtaining legal advice to bolster their positions in potential disputes. Pursuing community harmony while understanding the implications of CCRs is essential for successful residency in any planned community.