Tag Archives: Smith & Wamsley, PLLC

Brian & Rosalie Gordon v. Tucson Estate No. Two Owner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-07-10
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Gordon and Rosalie Gordon Counsel —
Respondent Tucson Estate No. Two Owner's Association Counsel Jason Smith

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article 10; Finance Committee rules
A.R.S. § 33-1805; Bylaws Article 10
A.R.S. § 33-1805; Bylaws Article 10
A.R.S. § 33-1805; Bylaws Article 10

Outcome Summary

Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party regarding Petition Issues 1 and 4, and Respondent was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issues 2 and 3. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners $1,000.00 of the filing fee. Respondent was also directed to comply with Community Documents and A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward. No Civil Penalty was levied.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof for Complaints 2 and 3, establishing that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 or failed to abide by Community Documents, because Respondent provided all available records or offered additional reports.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Community Documents by not recording and making available the minutes of all Finance Committee Meetings held in 2023.

Petitioners requested minutes for five 2023 Finance Committee Meetings. The Committee rules required minutes of its meetings as a permanent record of its actions. The Respondent failed to record meeting minutes as required.

Orders: Respondent directed to comply with the requirements of its Community Documents going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Violation by not keeping and making financial and other HOA business documentation (Budget Working Papers) available for review.

Petitioners requested copies of Budget Working Papers. Respondent provided all available documents (unapproved budget, general ledger, and draft), maintaining only one version of a proprietary spreadsheet. Petitioners failed to meet their burden to prove Respondent did not make records available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Violation by not keeping and making financial and other HOA business documentation (Accounts Payable journal with GL detail) available for review.

Petitioners requested Accounts Payable journal/reports multiple times. Respondent provided copies of available accounts payable reports (check receipts and general ledger). When Respondent later identified an additional detailed report available for purchase, Petitioners refused it.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Violation by not keeping and making financial and other HOA business documentation (IRS Tax filings and backup documentation) available for review.

Petitioners requested IRS Tax filings. Respondent initially provided only photocopies of two pages of the 1120-h form, missing schedules and backup documentation. Respondent failed to provide full tax returns or backup documentation in a timely manner (within ten business days).

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records dispute, Finance Committee minutes, budget working papers, accounts payable journal, IRS tax filings, record retention, A.R.S. § 33-1805 violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Decision Documents

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1176916.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:02 (53.5 KB)

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1198119.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:02 (203.0 KB)

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1200350.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:02 (37.2 KB)

Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony Payson Counsel —
Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Counsel Sean K. Mohnihan

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 5.4

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's alleged failure to enforce nuisance provision (CC&R Section 5.4) regarding neighbor's outdoor television.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Section 5.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:22 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:22 (98.4 KB)

Donald F. Molley v. Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H007-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-01-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Donald F. Molley Counsel —
Respondent Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association Counsel Sean K. Moynihan, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Declaration Section 12.B
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's entire petition was denied because the Department of Real Estate/OAH lacked statutory jurisdiction over the Association. The Association was found not to meet the statutory definitions of a condominium association or a planned community association because it does not own common areas or real property.

Why this result: OAH determined it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq., because the Respondent Association is neither a condominium association nor a planned community association (ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1202(10) and 33-1802(4)).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged use of Association funds for maintenance on private property.

Petitioner alleged that the Association used HOA funds for maintenance on private property in violation of Section 12.B of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petition denied due to lack of OAH jurisdiction.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(10)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • Declaration Section 12.B

Alleged failure to provide requested financial documents and meeting minutes.

Petitioner requested monthly bank statements and financial reports for 2022, and financial books for 2021, which Respondent allegedly failed to provide in violation of ARS § 33-1805.

Orders: Petition denied due to lack of OAH jurisdiction.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(10)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, planned_community_act, condominium_act, denial, document_request, maintenance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(10)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • Declaration Section 12.B

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1006960.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (46.0 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1008524.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (61.8 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1008675.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (8.7 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1010876.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (51.8 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1020898.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (44.8 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1027131.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (146.3 KB)

Elieen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H002-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-11-17
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Eileen Ahearn Counsel —
Respondent High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Counsel Jason Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures (approved 19 July 2021)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of the right to vote in Removal/Recall Special Election

Petitioners alleged they were denied the right to vote in the July 5, 2022 Removal/Recall Special Election after their initial ballots (couriered prior to the meeting) were rejected for lacking a postmark, and their subsequent attempts to cast new ballots in person were rejected for reasons including 'double voting' or being 'too late.' The ALJ found the HOA violated its established election procedures.

Orders: The Petition was upheld, and Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Violation, Voting Rights, CCNR, Recall Election, Filing Fee Refund, Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • 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. § 41-1092.09
  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1009442.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:49 (60.1 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1013289.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:50 (127.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996298.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:50 (54.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996319.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:50 (7.5 KB)

James Iannuzo v. Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221014-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James Iannuzo Counsel —
Respondent Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association Counsel Jason E. Smith

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243(H)(4)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed by showing the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243. The Association was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee. Petitioner's requests for voiding election results, assessing a civil penalty, and appointing an administrator were denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of statutory procedure for board member removal concerning ballot tabulation after deadline.

The Association violated the statute by tabulating ballots for a recall election at the August 19, 2021 meeting, as those ballots were only valid for the canceled June 30, 2021 special meeting.

Orders: Respondent must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order. Other requested remedies (voiding results, assessing civil penalty, appointing administrator) were denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)(3)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA board recall, Ballot tabulation, Quorum dispute, Statutory violation, Filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Homeowners Ass'n
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 935534.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:23 (128.9 KB)

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 945764.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:23 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 949683.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:23 (49.4 KB)