Tag Archives: TE

Charlotte Tande v. Wintergardens Co-Operative

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-09-05
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charlotte Tande Counsel —
Respondent Wintergardens Co-Operative Counsel Beth Mulcahy, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1810

Outcome Summary

The case was dismissed because the Administrative Law Judge determined the Wintergardens Co-Operative, a cooperative mobile home park, did not qualify as a 'planned community' or 'condominium association' under Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16, thus the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Why this result: The Respondent was found not to be a 'Planned Community' because its shareholders were lessees, not owners of 'separately owned lots, parcels or units' as required by A.R.S. § 33-1802(4).

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Requirements

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to comply with the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Orders: The case was dismissed after Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Filing fee: $0.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Financial Records Provision

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide certain financial records as required by A.R.S. § 33-1810.

Orders: The case was dismissed after Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Filing fee: $0.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Decision Documents

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1074375.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:14 (45.4 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1089824.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:14 (83.6 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1089829.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:15 (40.0 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1091579.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:15 (38.0 KB)

Lisa Kittredge v. SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-06-13
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lisa Kittredge Counsel —
Respondent SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Counsel Lori N Brown

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association violated its governing documents by allocating funds from the HOA Contingency funding stream (general assessments) for drainage issues benefitting the SunBird Golf Club, as the 2015 CC&Rs, as amended in 2021, restricted such expenditures exclusively to funds collected under Section 6.7(C).

Key Issues & Findings

Expenditure of HOA Contingency Funds for Golf Course Drainage Maintenance

Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly used annual assessments (Contingency Fund) to pay $15,968 (capped at $20,000) for cleaning drainage wells on the privately owned SunBird Golf Club property. The ALJ concluded that under the 2015 CC&Rs, as amended in 2021, the HOA was only permitted to expend funds collected specifically pursuant to Section 6.7(C) (Capital Improvement Assessment for Golf Course) for golf course drainage issues, and therefore, using the Contingency fund violated the governing documents.

Orders: Respondent must reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Section 6.3(A) (2015)
  • 2021 Amendment to 2015 CC&Rs
  • Section 6.7(C) of the 2021 Amendment
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, CC&R Interpretation, Unauthorized Expenditure, Contingency Fund, Drainage Maintenance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Section 6.3(A) (2015)
  • 2021 Amendment to 2015 CC&Rs
  • Section 6.7(C) of the 2021 Amendment

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H040-REL Decision – 1039237.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:20 (47.3 KB)

23F-H040-REL Decision – 1053619.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:20 (43.9 KB)

23F-H040-REL Decision – 1064270.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:20 (155.3 KB)

Jill P. Eden-Burns v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H015-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-18
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jill P. Eden-Burns Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (C), (E); CC&R 4.32

Outcome Summary

The petition was granted because the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law) by holding an informal quorum discussion prior to a meeting, and violated CC&R 4.32 by improperly charging the homeowner $1750.00 for septic maintenance and repair costs that should have been covered by annual common assessments.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Laws and unequal application of CC&R 4.32 regarding septic system costs.

The Board violated open meeting laws by holding an informal quorum discussion about septic policy prior to a formal meeting. Additionally, the Association improperly charged Petitioner $1750.00 for septic maintenance and repair, violating CC&R 4.32, which mandates such costs be included as part of Assessments allocated equally among all Lots.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent must reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee and henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-33-1804 and CC&R 4.32.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)
  • CC&R 4.32

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meeting Law, HOA Governing Documents, Assessment Dispute, Septic System Maintenance, Informal Meeting
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2102
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)
  • CC&R 4.32
  • CC&R 8.1
  • CC&R 8.2
  • CC&R 11.2
  • CC&R 15.1

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1015027.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (52.0 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1017891.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (53.2 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1024720.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (59.5 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1033722.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (47.5 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1057466.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (168.6 KB)

Clifford S Burnes V. Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H030-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-17
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Counsel John T. Crotty

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6). The violation occurred because the Association's governing documents did not permit secret ballots, necessitating that the completed ballot contain the name, address, and signature of the voter, a requirement the distributed ballots failed to meet. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and comply with the statute henceforth.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of voting statute requiring name, address, and signature on completed ballot.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA's vote by written ballot was non-compliant because the individual ballots lacked the required name, address, and signature of the voter. The ALJ concluded that since the community documents did not permit secret ballots, the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) required the ballot itself (distinct from the envelope) to contain the name, address, and signature, and the HOA failed to meet this requirement.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 and henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, Voting procedures, Secret ballot, Statutory interpretation, Dissolution vote
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H030-REL Decision – 1037366.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:53 (47.2 KB)

23F-H030-REL Decision – 1049922.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:53 (128.9 KB)

Richard Busack v. The Cliffs Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H010-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-12-16
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard Busack Counsel —
Respondent The Cliffs Condominium Association Counsel Melissa Doolan

Alleged Violations

Article III, Section 3.07 of the Declaration of Establishment of Condominium and of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for The Cliffs Condominium

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the responsibility for maintaining the leaking pipe and the resulting damage fell under the owner of the unit served by the pipe (Unit 263) as defined by Article III, Section 3.07 of the CC&Rs, not the HOA.

Why this result: The ALJ’s interpretation of Article III, Section 3.07 found that the owner of Unit 263 was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the specific section of pipe that leaked, and therefore, the HOA was not liable for the resulting damage or requested reimbursement.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA responsibility for reimbursement for kitchen cabinet and countertop replacement and mold remediation/restoration after a leaking pipe.

Petitioner sought reimbursement of $8541.00 from the HOA for damages caused by Cat 3 water coming from a leaking toilet pipe located between the ceiling of unit 163 and the subfloor of unit 263. Petitioner alleged the pipe was the HOA's responsibility as it was in the inner walls and not 'open and unobstructed' as defined by Petitioner. The ALJ determined the pipe maintenance was the responsibility of the owner of Unit 263, not the HOA, based on the plain reading of Article III, Section 3.07.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • Article III, Section 3.07 (CC&Rs)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Responsibility, CC&Rs Interpretation, Pipe Maintenance, Water Damage Reimbursement, Owner Responsibility
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • Article III, Section 3.07 (CC&Rs)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H010-REL Decision – 1020439.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:14 (91.6 KB)

Asmaa Kadhum v. Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Asmaa Kadhum Counsel —
Respondent Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1256

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that since the lien central to the Petitioner's complaint (A.R.S. § 33-1256) had been released and no enforcement action was pending, there was no issue for the OAH to decide regarding the reasonableness of the remaining outstanding legal fees.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the underlying lien had been released and no enforcement action was being pursued by the Respondent against the property.

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees

Petitioner alleged Respondent (HOA) violated A.R.S. § 33-1256 by charging unreasonable collection fees and legal fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) related to a lien placed (June 15, 2020) and later released (November 13, 2020). Petitioner argued the fees were invalid as the underlying lien was improper and subsequently released. The ALJ found no violation because there was no recorded lien or pending enforcement action at the time of the petition (January 2022) or rehearing, thus removing the issue from the OAH's purview under the cited statute.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.R.S. § 33-420
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, lien, collection fees, attorney fees, released lien, rehearing, ARS 33-1256
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.R.S. § 33-420
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:46 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:46 (37.4 KB)

Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Kim. M. Grill

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222039-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-03
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel Augustus H. Shaw, IV
Respondent Kim M. Grill Counsel Lawrence J. Felder

Alleged Violations

Article 2, Section 2.11 of the Restatement of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA failed to prove the homeowner violated the CC&Rs regarding leasing/occupancy rules, as the homeowner and her roommate's arrangement met the undefined term 'common household' required for a 'Single Family' occupancy.

Why this result: The HOA failed to meet the burden of proving that the homeowner's temporary roommate agreement constituted a violation of CC&R Article 2, Section 2.11.

Key Issues & Findings

Residential Use/Leasing Restrictions

Petitioner HOA alleged Respondent homeowner violated CC&R Article 2, Section 2.11 by entering into a roommate agreement while residing in the home, interpreting this as leasing less than the entire unit and arguing the parties did not constitute a 'Single Family' maintaining a 'common household.'

Orders: Petitioner’s petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Rental Restriction, Common Household, Single Family, Roommate, CC&R Enforcement, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 2, Section 2.11

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 1003618.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:08 (125.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 972982.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:08 (47.8 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 973826.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:08 (50.2 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 974120.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:08 (50.6 KB)

M&T Properties LLC v. Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222060-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner M&T Properties LLC Counsel Lucas Thomas, Owner
Respondent Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association Counsel David Rivandi, Director

Alleged Violations

Section 6.7 of the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium and of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Kivas Uno Condominium

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the singular issue raised: Respondent (HOA) was found to be in violation of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs for failing to retain a duly licensed property management agent at the time the petition was filed. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with the CC&Rs moving forward. No civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Professional Management

Respondent (HOA) acknowledged that as of the date the Petition was filed (June 6, 2022), it did not retain or maintain a Managing Agent who is duly licensed by the State of Arizona as a property manager, which violated Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and was directed to comply with the requirements of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCNR violation, Property Management, Filing Fee Refund, No Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222060-REL Decision – 997254.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:33 (87.5 KB)

Evin Abromowitz v. The Meadows Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222038-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Evin Abromowitz Counsel —
Respondent The Meadows Homeowners Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs, Section 3.5 and 3.6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the homeowner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs Sections 3.5 or 3.6 regarding its authority to enact or enforce the rules and regulations that were at issue.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated CC&Rs Section 3.5 or 3.6. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was authorized to enact rules relating to the operation of the association and to enforce them.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner claimed Respondent violated CC&Rs 3.5 and 3.6 regarding its power to adopt and enforce rules by applying rules allegedly unrelated to the operation of the association and/or failing to follow protocol.

Petitioner challenged the HOA's authority to enact (3.5) and enforce (3.6) specific rules, arguing they were not related to association operation (e.g., controlling off-site email communication or fining for vendor interaction) and that enforcement protocols were violated. The ALJ denied the petition, finding the HOA was authorized to enact and enforce rules related to the operation of the association, and Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA rules and regulations, CC&Rs, Enforcement authority, Burden of Proof, Planned community association dispute
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 966844.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:04 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 969590.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:04 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 994145.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:04 (145.3 KB)

Asmaa Kadhum v. Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Asmaa Kadhum Counsel —
Respondent Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1256

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the specific issue raised—a complaint about a recorded lien—was moot, as the lien had been released, and no current enforcement action regarding the disputed legal fees was pending.

Why this result: The ALJ determined that absent a recorded lien or pending enforcement action, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to address the reasonableness or accuracy of the disputed legal fees under the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1256).

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.

Petitioner sought to waive or adjust unreasonable collection fees and attorney fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) charged by the HOA related to a lien placed on their unit, which was later released because it was allegedly based on incorrect amounts.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA lien, Collection fees, Attorney fees, Statutory violation, Jurisdiction, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:44 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:44 (37.4 KB)