Case Summary
| Case ID | 17F-H1717026-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2017-06-19 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Diane Mihalsky |
| Outcome | none |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Tom Pyron | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. | Counsel | B. Austin Baillio |
Alleged Violations
Bylaws, Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA correctly identified only one Board position (the one-year term) was up for election in 2017 based on the Bylaws' staggered term provisions.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Bylaws.
Key Issues & Findings
Dispute over the number of Board of Director positions available for the 2017 election.
Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated Bylaws by stating only one Board position was up for election for a one-year term in 2017, when Petitioner contended two positions (one-year and two-year terms) were open.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
- R4-28-1310
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
- R4-28-1310
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 570560.pdf
17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 576045.pdf
Briefing Document: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between homeowner Tom Pyron (“Petitioner”) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The central issue was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board of Directors position was open for election in 2017, whereas the Petitioner contended two positions should have been open.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the association’s bylaws, specifically Article III, § 3.02, which governs the staggered terms of office for the three-member board. The ALJ found that a board member’s personal understanding of their term length could not amend the plain language of the bylaws. Based on the bylaw’s schedule for staggered terms, the judge concluded that a pivotal 2015 election could only have filled a one-year and a three-year term, which sequentially led to only one position being open in 2017. The Petitioner’s petition was denied, and this decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
I. Case Overview
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Tom Pyron, a condominium owner and member of the Respondent association.
◦ Respondent: Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc., represented by B. Austin Baillio, Esq., of Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
• Case Numbers: 17F-H1717026-REL; HO 17-17/026
• Adjudicator: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Final Order By: Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• Hearing Date: June 12, 2017.
• Final Order Date: July 12, 2017.
The case was initiated when Tom Pyron filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on March 16, 2017, alleging a violation of the homeowners’ association’s bylaws concerning the 2017 Board of Directors election.
II. Petitioner’s Allegations
The Petitioner’s claim centered on the belief that the Respondent improperly noticed the number of available Board positions for the 2017 election.
• Core Allegation: The Respondent violated its Bylaws (Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06) by informing members that only one Board position for a one-year term was available for the 2017 election.
• Petitioner’s Contention: Two positions—one for a one-year term and one for a two-year term—should have been up for election in 2017.
• Basis of Argument: The Petitioner’s argument was built upon the 2015 election of Barbara Ahlstrand. He contended, supported by Ahlstrand’s testimony, that she was elected to a two-year term. Following this logic:
1. Ahlstrand’s term would run from 2015 to 2017.
2. When she resigned in August 2015, her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was appointed to serve the remainder of that two-year term, which would expire in 2017.
3. Therefore, Jeff Oursland should not have been on the ballot for the 2016 election, and his two-year position should have been one of the two seats open for election in 2017.
III. Respondent’s Position and Pre-Hearing Actions
The Respondent denied any violation of its bylaws and maintained that its actions were consistent with the governing documents.
• Pre-Hearing Resolution Attempts: In response to the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued election ballots. The Respondent also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution, an offer the Petitioner did not accept.
• Core Defense: The Respondent’s position was based on a direct interpretation of Bylaw § 3.02, which dictates the schedule of staggered terms.
• Basis of Argument: The Respondent argued that according to the bylaw’s prescribed cycle, only the one-year and three-year positions were up for election in 2015.
1. As it was agreed that Sandra Singer received the most votes and was elected to the three-year term, Barbara Ahlstrand must have been elected to the available one-year term.
2. Therefore, Ahlstrand’s term was set to expire in 2016.
3. Her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was correctly appointed to serve only until the 2016 election.
4. Consequently, Oursland was properly elected to a new two-year term in 2016 (expiring in 2018), and the only seat open in 2017 was the one-year term completed by Steve Molever.
IV. Chronology of Board Elections and Appointments
The dispute originated from differing interpretations of election outcomes from 2014 onward. The Board of Directors has consistently been comprised of three members.
Election Year
Agreed Facts & Election Results
Petitioner’s Interpretation/Contention
Respondent’s Interpretation/Position
Anne Fugate elected to a 3-year term.
John Haunschild elected to a 2-year term.
Ron Cadaret elected to a 1-year term.
N/A (Agreed)
N/A (Agreed)
Ron Cadaret re-elected to a 1-year term.
N/A (Agreed)
N/A (Agreed)
Minutes state “the election of Sandra Singer was unanimously passed by acclamation.”
Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term. No other officers were elected.
Based on bylaw § 3.02 and the 2015 Board composition, John Haunschild must have been re-elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2016), and Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term (expiring 2015).
Sandra Singer and Barbara Ahlstrand were elected. Singer received the most votes and was elected to a 3-year term. Ahlstrand resigned 8/3/2015.
Ahlstrand believed she was elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2017).
Per bylaw § 3.02, only the 1-year and 3-year terms were open. Since Singer got the 3-year term, Ahlstrand must have been elected to the 1-year term (expiring 2016).
Appointment
The Board appointed Jeff Oursland to serve the remainder of Ahlstrand’s term.
Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2017.
Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2016.
Jeff Oursland was elected to a 2-year term.
Steve Molever was elected to a 1-year term.
Oursland should not have been on the ballot, as his term was not set to expire until 2017.
Oursland’s appointed term expired, so he was properly elected to a new 2-year term (expiring 2018).
No election had been held due to the pending petition.
Two positions should be open for election: the 2-year term (Ahlstrand/Oursland’s) and the 1-year term (Molever’s).
Only one position is open for election: the 1-year term completed by Molever.
V. Analysis and Conclusions of Law
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the legal standard of “a preponderance of the evidence” and a strict textual interpretation of the association’s bylaws. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation.
• Primacy of Bylaw Language: The judge’s central legal conclusion was that the bylaws must be interpreted based on their plain meaning. Key quotes from the decision include:
• Key Legal Finding: The pivotal determination concerned the 2015 election. The ALJ found that under the “plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015.”
◦ Because the parties agreed that Ms. Singer was elected to the three-year term, the judge concluded that “Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term.”
◦ This finding invalidated the Petitioner’s core premise that Ahlstrand had begun a two-year term.
• Consequential Logic: This central finding created a direct logical chain that affirmed the Respondent’s actions:
1. Ms. Ahlstrand’s term was for one year, expiring in 2016.
2. When she resigned, the Board appointed Mr. Oursland to serve the remainder of her term, which correctly ended at the 2016 election.
3. Mr. Oursland was therefore “properly elected to a two-year term at that time [2016], which will expire in 2018.”
VI. Final Disposition
Based on the analysis of the bylaws and the sequence of elections, the ALJ ruled against the Petitioner.
• Recommended Order (June 19, 2017): The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”
• Final Order (July 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision. The Final Order states, “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”
• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. The document outlines eight potential causes for which a rehearing or review may be granted, including procedural irregularities, misconduct, newly discovered material evidence, or a finding of fact that is arbitrary or contrary to law.