Tag Archives: SF

George Wolchko v. Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H025-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-05-05
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $150.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner George Wolchko Counsel —
Respondent Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association Counsel Christopher Duren

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805
Bylaws, Article III, Section 4
CC&Rs, Section 4.04
Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on three of the four issues: Violation of AZ Law on Delivery of Community Documents (A.R.S. § 33-1805), Failure to Uphold CCRs Regarding Common Wall Repairs (Bylaws/CC&R violation), and operating with fewer than the minimum required number of board members (Bylaws violation). The Petitioner did not prevail on the issue regarding the Failure to Hold a Special HOA Meeting.

Why this result: Petitioner's request for an “emergency meeting” regarding the wall repair was deemed technically insufficient to qualify as a formal 'special meeting' petition under the Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of AZ Law on Delivery of Community Documents

The HOA failed to provide the Kachina Management contract within the required ten business days for examination or copies, despite numerous requests.

Orders: Respondent failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 by not making documents available for examination within ten business days of request.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $50.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • Bylaws, Article X
  • CC&Rs, Section 9.07

Failure to Hold a Special HOA Meeting

The HOA failed to hold a special meeting requested by a valid petition signed by 25% of members, concerning common wall damage.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • Bylaws, Article III, Section 4

Failure to Uphold CCRs Regarding Common Wall Repairs

The HOA refused to repair a common wall designated as a Common Element after damage was caused by an HOA-sanctioned electrician, failing their maintenance obligation.

Orders: The Board failed to maintain a Common Element (electrical conduit/wall area) in good repair after its hired contractor caused damage, violating Bylaws and CC&R obligations.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $50.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs, Section 4.04
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 3
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)

Violations of HOA Elections Procedures and Community Documents (Failure to seat required number of board members)

The HOA Board violated governing documents by operating with only two members, failing to maintain the minimum required number of three directors.

Orders: Respondent violated Bylaws Article IV, Section 1 by not maintaining a Board of Directors composed of no fewer than three persons.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $50.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
  • CC&Rs, Section 5.03

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, Document request, Board composition, Common elements maintenance, Filing fee refund, Civil penalty
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
  • CC&Rs, Section 4.04
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 3
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Decision Documents

25F-H025-REL Decision – 1268559.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:56 (55.5 KB)

25F-H025-REL Decision – 1276022.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:56 (57.0 KB)

25F-H025-REL Decision – 1276027.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:56 (7.3 KB)

25F-H025-REL Decision – 1282178.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:56 (49.3 KB)

25F-H025-REL Decision – 1288973.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:57 (52.0 KB)

25F-H025-REL Decision – 1290761.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:57 (50.5 KB)

25F-H025-REL Decision – 1301417.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:57 (224.5 KB)

Debbie Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H029-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-03-12
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Debbie Westerman Counsel —
Respondent Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association Counsel Mark Lines

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the documents Petitioner requested—specifically bills issued by Respondent’s counsel—were privileged communications under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1). Because these documents were subject to the statutory exception, the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Respondent violated the records request statute. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation because the requested records fell under the attorney-client privilege exception defined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of member's right to examine financial records regarding legal fees.

Petitioner sought statements from the HOA's law firm (Shaw and Lines) from 2015 onward, specifically seeking the numerical amounts paid in legal fees. The HOA failed to respond within ten business days. The HOA argued the requested bills were privileged communications and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1).

Orders: Respondent was deemed the prevailing party in this matter.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records request, HOA records, condominium act, privileged communication, attorney-client privilege, legal fees
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1)

Decision Documents

25F-H029-REL Decision – 1282218.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:02 (95.6 KB)

Millard C. and Samantha Finch v. Mountain Gate Community aka Copper

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H017-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-03
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Samantha and Millard C. Finch Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioners' Dispute Petition, concluding that Petitioners failed to prove any errors in the administration or rejection of evidence or errors of law during the previous administrative hearing, which was the sole basis for the rehearing.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of proof to show procedural or evidentiary errors as required by the limited scope of the rehearing granted by the Department of Real Estate. Arguments focused on disagreement with the findings of the original decision, which were outside the scope.

Key Issues & Findings

Error in the administration or rejection of evidence or other errors occurring during the proceeding

The rehearing was limited to determining if errors occurred during the previous proceeding regarding the admission or rejection of evidence or errors of law. Petitioners alleged improper use of A.R.S. § 33-1807 by the original ALJ and claimed their evidence was rejected or not considered. The ALJ found that Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioners' Dispute Petition is Dismissed. The underlying ALJ Decision is binding.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 33-1807
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Procedural Error, Evidence, A.R.S. 33-1807
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1807
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Decision Documents

25F-H017-REL Decision – 1316094.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:41 (51.5 KB)

25F-H017-REL Decision – 1325522.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:41 (120.7 KB)

The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995 v.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H049-REL, 24F-H055-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-01-21
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995 Counsel —
Respondent The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association Counsel Daryl Wilson

Alleged Violations

Declaration §§ 7.1, 7.12, 7.14
Declaration §§ 4.6.1, 4.6.2
Declaration §§ 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.13
A.R.S. § 33-1248(E), (F)
Declaration § 5.1

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding issues 2 (Puppy Potty) and 4 (Notice/Agenda). Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner a filing fee refund of $1,000 and a Civil Penalty of $500 for Issue 2. Respondent prevailed on Issues 1, 3, and 5.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on Issues 1, 3, and 5, often due to the Board's discretion being upheld (budget, maintenance pace) or failure to establish the circumstances constituted an actionable nuisance (news crew).

Key Issues & Findings

Inadequate budget and funding of reserves; improper withdrawal of reserve funds.

Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly borrowed reserves (~$390k) for operating expenses and failed to adopt an adequate budget for reserves. The Tribunal found the budget practices required only a reasonable estimate and that the reserve contributions had exceeded recommended levels as of July 2024.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 7.1
  • Declaration § 7.12
  • Declaration § 7.14

Installation of 'puppy potty' on common elements.

Petitioner sought removal of a puppy potty installed on the roof (a common element) arguing it violated rules prohibiting pet structures on common elements and constituted a nuisance. The Tribunal found the puppy potty was a structure for the care of pets on common elements, violating Section 4.6.2.

Orders: Respondent is directed to remove the puppy potty structure, and a Civil Penalty of $500 is imposed.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 4.6.1
  • Declaration § 4.6.2

Allowing news crew use of common area.

Petitioner contested the HOA allowing a news crew in the common pool area during the 2023 baseball post-season. The Tribunal found the Declaration permits invitees (guests) and failed to establish the presence of the news crew was unreasonable, offensive, or infringed upon owner easements.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 3.3.1
  • Declaration § 3.3.2
  • Declaration § 4.13

Failure to provide required notice and adequate information in agendas.

Petitioner alleged the HOA agendas failed to provide adequate information for meaningful resident comments, specifically concerning non-emergency topics like purchasing patio furniture. The Tribunal found evidence that the Board failed to include at least one non-emergency topic on the agenda.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1248 and its Community Documents going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)

Failure to maintain, repair, and replace Common Elements (structural damage/garage cracks).

Petitioner sought enforcement of maintenance obligations due to perceived slow pace (years of delay) in addressing structural cracks and water infiltration in the garage ceiling. The Tribunal acknowledged delays but noted the Board had engaged experts and was following their recommendations for monitoring and testing before the decision date.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 5.1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condo, Reserves, Budget, Pets, Common Elements, Board Meetings, Notice, Structural Integrity
Additional Citations:

  • Declaration § 7.1
  • Declaration § 7.12
  • Declaration § 7.14
  • Declaration § 4.6.1
  • Declaration § 4.6.2
  • Declaration § 3.3.1
  • Declaration § 3.3.2
  • Declaration § 4.13
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)
  • Declaration § 5.1

Decision Documents

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1214040.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:15 (45.7 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1218977.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:15 (46.3 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1218981.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (5.9 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1219895.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (40.5 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1235253.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (47.1 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1264402.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (277.9 KB)

R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H001-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-11-12
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner R.L. Whitmer Counsel —
Respondent Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners Counsel Emily H. Mann

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found the Respondent HOA in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) for failing to contain the name of the association in the Declaration. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Declaration requirements for naming the condominium and association.

Petitioner claimed the Declaration failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) because it lacked the formal name of the association. Respondent argued the existing reference to the 'Council of Co-owners' was sufficient because case law established the current association was the successor entity. The Tribunal found the Declaration did not contain the name of the association as required.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days and shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-550
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(15)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1219(A)
  • London v Carrick
  • Schaefer v Pro Keanti AZ2 LP
  • Eli v Cro County A

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium Act, Declaration, Statute of Limitations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-550
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(15)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1219(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • London v Carrick
  • Schaefer v Pro Keanti AZ2 LP
  • Eli v Cro County A

Decision Documents

25F-H001-REL Decision – 1235116.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:34 (44.0 KB)

25F-H001-REL Decision – 1241814.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:35 (115.8 KB)

Justin R. Sheakley v. Arizona Hillcrest Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-10-21
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Justin R. Sheakley Counsel —
Respondent Arizona Hillcrest Community Association Counsel Quinten Cupps

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.2

Outcome Summary

Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing Respondent violated its Community Documents concerning the determination of structural damage required for shared cost repair under CC&R 11.2.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board was unreasonable when determining the wall at issue was structurally damaged.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute regarding cost sharing for common wall repair (structural damage determination)

Petitioner claimed the wall only required cosmetic repair (HOA responsibility per CC&R 11.2) rather than structural replacement (shared cost). The HOA relied on contractor assessment indicating structural damage. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated the CC&Rs or acted unreasonably in ordering the repair.

Orders: Respondent deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Structural Damage, HOA Maintenance, Cost Sharing, HOA Discretion
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.2
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Decision Documents

24F-H056-REL Decision – 1211424.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:32 (55.5 KB)

24F-H056-REL Decision – 1235391.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:32 (125.4 KB)

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)