Case Summary
| Case ID |
21F-H2120022-REL |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2021-08-24 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome |
loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$0.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes |
Counsel |
Anthony L. Perez, Esq. |
| Respondent |
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association |
Counsel |
Clint G. Goodman, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
A.R.S. § 33-1811
Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated any of the cited Arizona Revised Statutes or that the alleged CC&R violation was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803(D) and (E), 33-1804(5), or 33-1811, or that the alleged unapproved flood light violation was outside the scope of the cited CC&R provision (Article III, § 3.10).
Key Issues & Findings
The Association violated A.R.S.§ 33-1803(D) and (E) by failing to properly respond to the Barnes response to the notice of alleged violation and proceeding with enforcement actions.
Petitioner failed to establish the HOA violated these statutes because the HOA's May 27, 2020 notice contained all required information under A.R.S. § 1803(D)(1)-(4), rendering A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) inapplicable.
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119
The association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5) in rendering its decision on the Barnes contest of the notice.
Petitioner failed to establish violation of meeting procedures, as the appeal was discussed in an open session, and the subsequent closed session was justified to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
The alleged violation and resulting penalty imposed are void and unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1811.
Petitioner failed to prove violation. A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies only to contracts, decisions, or actions for compensation, and no evidence was presented that the Petitioner's appeal involved such compensation.
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
The alleged violation is outside the scope of the cited CC&R Article III, § 3.10.
Petitioner failed to prove the violation (installation of an unapproved flood light) was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10, which requires prior approval for 'other structure[s]'.
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
- Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
- Article IV, 4.6 (CC&Rs)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Architectural Control Committee, CC&R Enforcement, Floodlight, Meeting Procedure, Statutory Compliance
Additional Citations:
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
- A.R.S. § 33-1811
- Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119
Decision Documents
21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895732.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:30 (39.8 KB)
21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895827.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:30 (5.6 KB)
21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 906326.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:31 (99.4 KB)
