Tag Archives: TS

Don France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Don France Counsel —
Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association Counsel B. Austin Bailio

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 2.7

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.

Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020056-REL Decision – 823714.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:18 (96.1 KB)

Don France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Don France Counsel —
Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association Counsel B. Austin Bailio

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 2.7

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.

Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020056-REL Decision – 823714.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:12:15 (96.1 KB)

John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019032-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-08-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R Ashley Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. Counsel Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article III, Section 4

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's single-issue petition alleging that the HOA violated Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws by failing to ensure a quorum of Board members attended membership meetings was dismissed. The ALJ found that the Bylaw provision related to member quorum, not Board quorum, for member meetings, and the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: The Bylaws Article III, Section 4 is unambiguous and does not require a quorum of Board members to be present at a meeting of the members.

Key Issues & Findings

Quorum requirement for member meetings

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws by failing to have a quorum of Board members present at membership meetings. The ALJ concluded Article III, Section 4 is unambiguous and requires member quorum (1/10th of votes), not Board member quorum, for membership meetings.

Orders: Petitioner John R. Ashley’s petition is dismissed. Respondent deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 757 P.2d 105 (1988 App.)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Meeting of Members, Contract Interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 757 P.2d 105 (1988 App.)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019032-REL-RHG Decision – 814023.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:45 (99.2 KB)

John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019032-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-08-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R Ashley Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. Counsel Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article III, Section 4

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's single-issue petition alleging that the HOA violated Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws by failing to ensure a quorum of Board members attended membership meetings was dismissed. The ALJ found that the Bylaw provision related to member quorum, not Board quorum, for member meetings, and the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: The Bylaws Article III, Section 4 is unambiguous and does not require a quorum of Board members to be present at a meeting of the members.

Key Issues & Findings

Quorum requirement for member meetings

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws by failing to have a quorum of Board members present at membership meetings. The ALJ concluded Article III, Section 4 is unambiguous and requires member quorum (1/10th of votes), not Board member quorum, for membership meetings.

Orders: Petitioner John R. Ashley’s petition is dismissed. Respondent deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 757 P.2d 105 (1988 App.)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Meeting of Members, Contract Interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 757 P.2d 105 (1988 App.)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019032-REL-RHG Decision – 814023.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:10:42 (99.2 KB)

Victor L Pattarozzi v. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919047-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-06-05
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Victor L Pattarozzi Counsel —
Respondent Estrella Vista Homeowners Association Counsel Andrew Apodaca, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Architectural Committee meetings of the HOA were not 'regularly scheduled' within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804, and therefore the HOA was not required to hold them open to association members.

Why this result: The petitioner failed to prove that the committee meetings met the requirement of being 'regularly scheduled' because the committee did not meet at fixed or uniform intervals, but rather considered applications as they were received.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Architectural Committee meetings are 'regularly scheduled' and thus required to be open to members.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings of its Architectural Committee (ARC). The ALJ found that because the ARC did not meet on a set schedule or at uniform intervals, it did not hold 'regularly scheduled' meetings as required by the statute, and thus was not required to be open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Architectural Review Committee, Statutory Interpretation, Regularly Scheduled
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919047-REL Decision – 713039.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:08:58 (89.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919047-REL


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919047-REL, concerning a dispute between petitioner Victor L. Pattarozzi and the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association (HOA). The central issue was whether the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings were required to be open to all association members under Arizona state law.

The petitioner argued that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 by not holding open meetings for its ARC. The HOA contended that its ARC meetings were not “regularly scheduled” and therefore were exempt from the open meeting requirement for committees under the statute.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ruled in favor of the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, dismissing the petition. The decision hinged on the specific interpretation of the phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The judge concluded that the ARC, which considers applications on an as-needed basis rather than at fixed, uniform intervals, does not hold “regularly scheduled” meetings. Consequently, its meetings are not required to be open to the general membership of the association.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Number: 19F-H1919047-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Victor L. Pattarozzi

◦ Respondent: Estrella Vista Homeowners Association

• Presiding Judge: Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: May 16, 2019

• Decision Date: June 5, 2019

• Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings for its Architectural Committee, also referred to as the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

II. Positions of the Parties

A. Petitioner’s Argument (Victor L. Pattarozzi)

Mr. Pattarozzi’s case was predicated on the belief that all ARC meetings should be open to HOA members. His key arguments were:

• Statutory Violation: The HOA’s practice of holding closed ARC meetings constituted a direct violation of the open meeting requirements outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804.

• Definition of “Regularly”: To support his interpretation, Mr. Pattarozzi provided dictionary definitions for “regularly” and “regular”:

◦ Regularly: (1) “in a regular manner”; (2) “on a regular basis: at regular intervals.”

◦ Regular: (1) “constituted, conducted, scheduled, or done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”; (2) “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals.”

• Procedural Solution: He suggested that the HOA could comply with the law by scheduling ARC meetings on a weekly basis and simply canceling them if no applications were pending for review.

• Policy of Openness: Mr. Pattarozzi contended that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings, as stated in subsection 33-1804(F), should be construed to require ARC meetings to be open to members.

B. Respondent’s Argument (Estrella Vista HOA)

The HOA, represented by Andrew Apodaca, Esq., with testimony from Board President Stuart Glenn, countered that its ARC meetings were not subject to the open meeting law.

• Core Defense: The respondent’s primary position was that ARC meetings are not required to be open to members because they are not “regularly scheduled” as stipulated by the statute.

III. Key Findings of Fact

The Administrative Law Judge established the following facts based on the hearing:

• ARC Composition and Schedule: The ARC consists of five members and does not meet on a set or recurring schedule. It considers applications as they are received.

• Application Volume: As of the May 16, 2019 hearing date, the ARC had received twelve applications in 2019.

• Application Processing:

◦ The HOA’s management company forwards applications to Board President Stuart Glenn.

◦ Mr. Glenn determines how each application is processed.

• “Rubber Stamp” Process: The ARC has a pre-approved “rubber stamp” process for certain requests, specifically for solar panels and repainting using a preapproved color. These requests are approved without further review.

◦ Of the twelve applications received in 2019, eight were approved via this “rubber stamp” process.

• Standard Review Process: For any application not meeting the “rubber stamp” criteria, Mr. Glenn forwards the application to the other four ARC members, who then individually “report back as to their agreement or disagreement with approving the application.”

IV. Legal Analysis and Rationale for Decision

The judge’s decision was based on a detailed interpretation of the relevant statute and legal principles.

A. Statutory Interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The judge focused on the precise wording of subsection 33-1804(A): “all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association….”

The judge’s analysis highlighted a critical distinction made by the legislature:

• Board/Association Meetings: The word “all” mandates that every meeting of the full association membership and the board of directors must be open.

• Committee Meetings: The legislature added the qualifier “regularly scheduled,” which explicitly means that not all committee meetings must be open—only those that are regularly scheduled.

B. Defining “Regularly Scheduled”

The judge evaluated the dictionary definitions provided by Mr. Pattarozzi to determine the legislative intent behind the phrase.

• Rejected Definition: The judge dismissed the first definition of “regular” (“done in conformity with the rules”). He reasoned that since all committee meetings are presumed to be conducted according to established rules, applying this definition would make the word “regular” in the statute “redundant or trivial.”

• Accepted Definition: The judge found the second definition of “regular”—”recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals”—to be the appropriate interpretation.

• Application to the ARC: Based on this accepted definition, the judge concluded that only committee meetings scheduled on a recurring basis at uniform intervals are required to be open to members. The Estrella Vista HOA’s ARC, which meets on an as-needed basis, does not fit this definition.

C. Analysis of the Policy Statement

The judge also rejected Mr. Pattarozzi’s argument regarding the policy of openness declared in subsection 33-1804(F).

• Statutory Limitation: The judge noted that the policy subsection explicitly references only “meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors.”

• Omission of Committees: Because the policy statement does not mention committee meetings, the judge concluded that it could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.

V. Final Order and Conclusion

Based on the preceding analysis, the Administrative Law Judge reached a definitive conclusion.

• Conclusion of Law: The judge found that “Respondent’s Architectural Committee does not hold ‘regularly scheduled’ meetings within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804.”

• Final Ruling: As Mr. Pattarozzi had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the statute, his petition was ordered to be dismissed.

• Notice of Rehearing: The decision included a formal notice that the order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.


Victor L Pattarozzi v. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919047-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-06-05
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Victor L Pattarozzi Counsel —
Respondent Estrella Vista Homeowners Association Counsel Andrew Apodaca, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Architectural Committee meetings of the HOA were not 'regularly scheduled' within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804, and therefore the HOA was not required to hold them open to association members.

Why this result: The petitioner failed to prove that the committee meetings met the requirement of being 'regularly scheduled' because the committee did not meet at fixed or uniform intervals, but rather considered applications as they were received.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Architectural Committee meetings are 'regularly scheduled' and thus required to be open to members.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings of its Architectural Committee (ARC). The ALJ found that because the ARC did not meet on a set schedule or at uniform intervals, it did not hold 'regularly scheduled' meetings as required by the statute, and thus was not required to be open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Architectural Review Committee, Statutory Interpretation, Regularly Scheduled
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919047-REL Decision – 713039.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:08 (89.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919047-REL


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919047-REL, concerning a dispute between petitioner Victor L. Pattarozzi and the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association (HOA). The central issue was whether the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings were required to be open to all association members under Arizona state law.

The petitioner argued that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 by not holding open meetings for its ARC. The HOA contended that its ARC meetings were not “regularly scheduled” and therefore were exempt from the open meeting requirement for committees under the statute.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ruled in favor of the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, dismissing the petition. The decision hinged on the specific interpretation of the phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The judge concluded that the ARC, which considers applications on an as-needed basis rather than at fixed, uniform intervals, does not hold “regularly scheduled” meetings. Consequently, its meetings are not required to be open to the general membership of the association.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Number: 19F-H1919047-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Victor L. Pattarozzi

◦ Respondent: Estrella Vista Homeowners Association

• Presiding Judge: Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: May 16, 2019

• Decision Date: June 5, 2019

• Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings for its Architectural Committee, also referred to as the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

II. Positions of the Parties

A. Petitioner’s Argument (Victor L. Pattarozzi)

Mr. Pattarozzi’s case was predicated on the belief that all ARC meetings should be open to HOA members. His key arguments were:

• Statutory Violation: The HOA’s practice of holding closed ARC meetings constituted a direct violation of the open meeting requirements outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804.

• Definition of “Regularly”: To support his interpretation, Mr. Pattarozzi provided dictionary definitions for “regularly” and “regular”:

◦ Regularly: (1) “in a regular manner”; (2) “on a regular basis: at regular intervals.”

◦ Regular: (1) “constituted, conducted, scheduled, or done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”; (2) “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals.”

• Procedural Solution: He suggested that the HOA could comply with the law by scheduling ARC meetings on a weekly basis and simply canceling them if no applications were pending for review.

• Policy of Openness: Mr. Pattarozzi contended that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings, as stated in subsection 33-1804(F), should be construed to require ARC meetings to be open to members.

B. Respondent’s Argument (Estrella Vista HOA)

The HOA, represented by Andrew Apodaca, Esq., with testimony from Board President Stuart Glenn, countered that its ARC meetings were not subject to the open meeting law.

• Core Defense: The respondent’s primary position was that ARC meetings are not required to be open to members because they are not “regularly scheduled” as stipulated by the statute.

III. Key Findings of Fact

The Administrative Law Judge established the following facts based on the hearing:

• ARC Composition and Schedule: The ARC consists of five members and does not meet on a set or recurring schedule. It considers applications as they are received.

• Application Volume: As of the May 16, 2019 hearing date, the ARC had received twelve applications in 2019.

• Application Processing:

◦ The HOA’s management company forwards applications to Board President Stuart Glenn.

◦ Mr. Glenn determines how each application is processed.

• “Rubber Stamp” Process: The ARC has a pre-approved “rubber stamp” process for certain requests, specifically for solar panels and repainting using a preapproved color. These requests are approved without further review.

◦ Of the twelve applications received in 2019, eight were approved via this “rubber stamp” process.

• Standard Review Process: For any application not meeting the “rubber stamp” criteria, Mr. Glenn forwards the application to the other four ARC members, who then individually “report back as to their agreement or disagreement with approving the application.”

IV. Legal Analysis and Rationale for Decision

The judge’s decision was based on a detailed interpretation of the relevant statute and legal principles.

A. Statutory Interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The judge focused on the precise wording of subsection 33-1804(A): “all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association….”

The judge’s analysis highlighted a critical distinction made by the legislature:

• Board/Association Meetings: The word “all” mandates that every meeting of the full association membership and the board of directors must be open.

• Committee Meetings: The legislature added the qualifier “regularly scheduled,” which explicitly means that not all committee meetings must be open—only those that are regularly scheduled.

B. Defining “Regularly Scheduled”

The judge evaluated the dictionary definitions provided by Mr. Pattarozzi to determine the legislative intent behind the phrase.

• Rejected Definition: The judge dismissed the first definition of “regular” (“done in conformity with the rules”). He reasoned that since all committee meetings are presumed to be conducted according to established rules, applying this definition would make the word “regular” in the statute “redundant or trivial.”

• Accepted Definition: The judge found the second definition of “regular”—”recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals”—to be the appropriate interpretation.

• Application to the ARC: Based on this accepted definition, the judge concluded that only committee meetings scheduled on a recurring basis at uniform intervals are required to be open to members. The Estrella Vista HOA’s ARC, which meets on an as-needed basis, does not fit this definition.

C. Analysis of the Policy Statement

The judge also rejected Mr. Pattarozzi’s argument regarding the policy of openness declared in subsection 33-1804(F).

• Statutory Limitation: The judge noted that the policy subsection explicitly references only “meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors.”

• Omission of Committees: Because the policy statement does not mention committee meetings, the judge concluded that it could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.

V. Final Order and Conclusion

Based on the preceding analysis, the Administrative Law Judge reached a definitive conclusion.

• Conclusion of Law: The judge found that “Respondent’s Architectural Committee does not hold ‘regularly scheduled’ meetings within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804.”

• Final Ruling: As Mr. Pattarozzi had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the statute, his petition was ordered to be dismissed.

• Notice of Rehearing: The decision included a formal notice that the order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.


Pointe Tapatio Community Association vs. Lanye C. and Devin E. Wilkey

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-07
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Pointe Tapatio Community Association Counsel Lauren Vie
Respondent Lanye C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey Counsel Joseph Velez

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 3, section 3.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Respondents violated the CC&Rs by operating a business that created traffic and parking. The Respondents were ordered to cease business operations and pay a $500.00 civil penalty. The Petitioner's request for a refund of its filing fee was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner's request for refund of the filing fee was denied because they cited no authority showing that the refund was within the tribunal’s authority.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Residential Use covenant prohibiting traffic/parking generation by business

The Petitioner HOA alleged that the Respondents, co-owners of the unit, violated CC&Rs Article 3, section 3.1 by operating a payroll processing company out of the unit. The ALJ found that the business required two employees to drive to the unit daily, thereby creating traffic and parking, which clearly and unambiguously violates the CC&R provision prohibiting non-residential use that creates traffic or parking.

Orders: Respondents were ordered to cease business operations at the unit (720 E. North Lane, Unit 1) within thirty-five days to comply with CC&R Article 3, section 3.1, and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department of Real Estate within sixty days. The Petitioner's request for refund of the filing fee was denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Business Use, Home Business, Parking, Traffic, Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919044-REL Decision – 706518.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:08:46 (36.5 KB)

19F-H1919044-REL Decision – 706560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:08:47 (108.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919044-REL


Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Pointe Tapatio Community Association v. Wilkey

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and decision in case number 19F-H1919044-REL, wherein the Pointe Tapatio Community Association petitioned against residents Lanye C. and Devin E. Wilkey for violating community covenants. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found conclusively in favor of the petitioner, determining that the Wilkeys were operating a business from their residential unit in direct violation of the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The core of the violation centered on CC&R Article 3, Section 3.1, which prohibits any non-residential use that “creates traffic [or] parking.” The Wilkeys acknowledged that two employees of their payroll processing company, Devau Human Resources, regularly commuted to and worked from the unit, thereby creating both traffic and parking. This admission was sufficient to establish a clear and unambiguous breach of the covenant.

The respondents’ primary defense—that they had received verbal permission from a former property manager in 2009—was found to be unsubstantiated and insufficient. The ALJ ordered the Wilkeys to cease all business operations at the residence within 35 days and to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department of Real Estate within 60 days.

Case Overview

Case Number

19F-H1919044-REL

Petitioner

Pointe Tapatio Community Association

Respondents

Lanye C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey

Hearing Date

April 26, 2019

Decision Date

May 7, 2019

Presiding Judge

Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge

Location

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Allegation and Governing Rule

The Pointe Tapatio Community Association (Petitioner) alleged that Lanye C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey (Respondents) were in violation of the community’s CC&Rs by using their property at 720 E. North Lane, Unit 1, as an office for their business, rather than exclusively as a residence.

The specific rule cited was CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1, which states:

“Residential. Each Residence shall be used, improved, and devoted exclusively to first class residential use, and no gainful occupation, profession, trade, business, religion, or other non-residential use which creates traffic [or] parking … shall be conducted from any Residence [or part thereof.]”

The association requested an order for the Wilkeys to abide by the CC&Rs, the imposition of a civil penalty, and a refund of its filing fee.

Key Findings of Fact

The Business Operation

• Business Entity: The Wilkeys, who are mother and son, co-own and operate Devau Human Resources, a payroll processing company. The business had previously operated from a commercial location before moving to the residential unit in late 2009.

• On-Site Employees: The Wilkeys acknowledged that two employees of Devau Human Resources drive to the unit to work.

◦ One employee works Monday through Thursday, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

◦ A second employee works Monday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

• Parking and Traffic: It was established that these employees at times park on the community’s streets, thereby creating both traffic and parking related to the business.

• Public Presence: Devau Human Resources’ website lists the E. North Lane address (as a mailing address only) and advertises office hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Google Maps also shows the business operating from this address.

• Admissions: Ms. Wilkey acknowledged during testimony that they consider the unit to be an office.

• Client Contact: The business does not have clients or customers come to the unit. Mail for the business is received at the unit.

The Respondents’ Defense

• Claim of Permission: The Wilkeys asserted that they received permission to move the business into the unit in 2009 from the property manager at the time, Howard Flisser.

• Lack of Evidence: The respondents acknowledged they had no written confirmation of this permission. Their belief was based on second- and third-hand information.

◦ Ms. Wilkey testified that she asked her husband (since deceased) if they could operate from the unit, who then asked a salesperson, who in turn allegedly asked Mr. Flisser and relayed that it was permissible.

◦ Mr. Wilkey testified that he believed they had permission because his father would not have taken the risk of moving the business without it.

• Claim of Residency: Mr. Wilkey testified that he considers the unit to be one of his two primary residences. However, when asked by attorneys for both parties how often he stayed there, he did not provide a responsive answer.

The Association’s Rebuttal and Position

• Timeline of Action: The Association sent a letter to the Wilkeys on August 8, 2018, informing them they were out of compliance and must cease business operations by August 31, 2018. The official petition was filed with the Department of Real Estate on January 17, 2019.

• Manager’s Testimony: Association board member Paula Duistermars testified that she and the association’s attorney had spoken to Howard Flisser a few days before the hearing. In that conversation, Mr. Flisser stated he could not recall giving permission and had volunteered twice that he “never gave permission for Devau to operate out of the unit.”

• Manager’s Authority: Ms. Duistermars also testified that Mr. Flisser, as property manager, did not have the authority to grant such permission; only the Association’s Board could do so.

• Permitted Businesses: The Association does allow certain home-based businesses that do not generate traffic or parking, such as telecommuting and teaching online classes. These do not require explicit Board permission.

• Origin of Complaint: The Board became aware of the Wilkeys’ business operation when another resident brought the issue to its attention. Ms. Duistermars was unaware of any specific complaints filed against the Wilkeys regarding traffic, parking, or noise.

Conclusions of Law and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision was based on the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence.” The core legal conclusions were as follows:

1. CC&Rs as a Binding Contract: The CC&Rs constitute a contract between the parties, and its terms must be complied with.

2. Unambiguous Language: The language in Article 3, Section 3.1 is clear and unambiguous. It is therefore enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

3. Violation Established: The preponderance of evidence demonstrated that the Wilkeys were operating a business from their unit. The Wilkeys’ own admission that two employees drive to and park at the unit to conduct business was sufficient to prove that their business “is creating both traffic and parking.”

4. Violation is Absolute: The ALJ noted there is no requirement in the CC&Rs that the traffic or parking must cause a separate violation or complaint. The mere fact that the business creates traffic and parking is sufficient to trigger the prohibition.

5. Finding of Violation: Based on the evidence, the Wilkeys are in violation of CC&R Article 3, Section 3.1.

6. Penalty Authority: Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02, the ALJ has the authority to order compliance and levy a civil penalty. A penalty of $500.00 was deemed appropriate given the unambiguous nature of the violation.

7. Filing Fee Denial: The Association’s request for a refund of its filing fee was denied, as it cited no authority showing this was within the tribunal’s power.

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders to Respondents Layne C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey:

• Cease Business Operations: Within thirty-five (35) days of the effective date of the Order, the Respondents must comply with CC&R Article 3, section 3.1 by ceasing business operations at 720 E. North Lane, Unit 1 (Lot 50), Phoenix, Arizona.

• Pay Civil Penalty: Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the Order, the Respondents must pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department of Real Estate.

• Rehearing Notice: This order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.


Pointe Tapatio Community Association vs. Lanye C. and Devin E. Wilkey

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-07
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Pointe Tapatio Community Association Counsel Lauren Vie
Respondent Lanye C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey Counsel Joseph Velez

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 3, section 3.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Respondents violated the CC&Rs by operating a business that created traffic and parking. The Respondents were ordered to cease business operations and pay a $500.00 civil penalty. The Petitioner's request for a refund of its filing fee was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner's request for refund of the filing fee was denied because they cited no authority showing that the refund was within the tribunal’s authority.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Residential Use covenant prohibiting traffic/parking generation by business

The Petitioner HOA alleged that the Respondents, co-owners of the unit, violated CC&Rs Article 3, section 3.1 by operating a payroll processing company out of the unit. The ALJ found that the business required two employees to drive to the unit daily, thereby creating traffic and parking, which clearly and unambiguously violates the CC&R provision prohibiting non-residential use that creates traffic or parking.

Orders: Respondents were ordered to cease business operations at the unit (720 E. North Lane, Unit 1) within thirty-five days to comply with CC&R Article 3, section 3.1, and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department of Real Estate within sixty days. The Petitioner's request for refund of the filing fee was denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Business Use, Home Business, Parking, Traffic, Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919044-REL Decision – 706518.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:04 (36.5 KB)

19F-H1919044-REL Decision – 706560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:04 (108.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919044-REL


Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Pointe Tapatio Community Association v. Wilkey

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and decision in case number 19F-H1919044-REL, wherein the Pointe Tapatio Community Association petitioned against residents Lanye C. and Devin E. Wilkey for violating community covenants. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found conclusively in favor of the petitioner, determining that the Wilkeys were operating a business from their residential unit in direct violation of the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The core of the violation centered on CC&R Article 3, Section 3.1, which prohibits any non-residential use that “creates traffic [or] parking.” The Wilkeys acknowledged that two employees of their payroll processing company, Devau Human Resources, regularly commuted to and worked from the unit, thereby creating both traffic and parking. This admission was sufficient to establish a clear and unambiguous breach of the covenant.

The respondents’ primary defense—that they had received verbal permission from a former property manager in 2009—was found to be unsubstantiated and insufficient. The ALJ ordered the Wilkeys to cease all business operations at the residence within 35 days and to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department of Real Estate within 60 days.

Case Overview

Case Number

19F-H1919044-REL

Petitioner

Pointe Tapatio Community Association

Respondents

Lanye C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey

Hearing Date

April 26, 2019

Decision Date

May 7, 2019

Presiding Judge

Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge

Location

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Allegation and Governing Rule

The Pointe Tapatio Community Association (Petitioner) alleged that Lanye C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey (Respondents) were in violation of the community’s CC&Rs by using their property at 720 E. North Lane, Unit 1, as an office for their business, rather than exclusively as a residence.

The specific rule cited was CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1, which states:

“Residential. Each Residence shall be used, improved, and devoted exclusively to first class residential use, and no gainful occupation, profession, trade, business, religion, or other non-residential use which creates traffic [or] parking … shall be conducted from any Residence [or part thereof.]”

The association requested an order for the Wilkeys to abide by the CC&Rs, the imposition of a civil penalty, and a refund of its filing fee.

Key Findings of Fact

The Business Operation

• Business Entity: The Wilkeys, who are mother and son, co-own and operate Devau Human Resources, a payroll processing company. The business had previously operated from a commercial location before moving to the residential unit in late 2009.

• On-Site Employees: The Wilkeys acknowledged that two employees of Devau Human Resources drive to the unit to work.

◦ One employee works Monday through Thursday, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

◦ A second employee works Monday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

• Parking and Traffic: It was established that these employees at times park on the community’s streets, thereby creating both traffic and parking related to the business.

• Public Presence: Devau Human Resources’ website lists the E. North Lane address (as a mailing address only) and advertises office hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Google Maps also shows the business operating from this address.

• Admissions: Ms. Wilkey acknowledged during testimony that they consider the unit to be an office.

• Client Contact: The business does not have clients or customers come to the unit. Mail for the business is received at the unit.

The Respondents’ Defense

• Claim of Permission: The Wilkeys asserted that they received permission to move the business into the unit in 2009 from the property manager at the time, Howard Flisser.

• Lack of Evidence: The respondents acknowledged they had no written confirmation of this permission. Their belief was based on second- and third-hand information.

◦ Ms. Wilkey testified that she asked her husband (since deceased) if they could operate from the unit, who then asked a salesperson, who in turn allegedly asked Mr. Flisser and relayed that it was permissible.

◦ Mr. Wilkey testified that he believed they had permission because his father would not have taken the risk of moving the business without it.

• Claim of Residency: Mr. Wilkey testified that he considers the unit to be one of his two primary residences. However, when asked by attorneys for both parties how often he stayed there, he did not provide a responsive answer.

The Association’s Rebuttal and Position

• Timeline of Action: The Association sent a letter to the Wilkeys on August 8, 2018, informing them they were out of compliance and must cease business operations by August 31, 2018. The official petition was filed with the Department of Real Estate on January 17, 2019.

• Manager’s Testimony: Association board member Paula Duistermars testified that she and the association’s attorney had spoken to Howard Flisser a few days before the hearing. In that conversation, Mr. Flisser stated he could not recall giving permission and had volunteered twice that he “never gave permission for Devau to operate out of the unit.”

• Manager’s Authority: Ms. Duistermars also testified that Mr. Flisser, as property manager, did not have the authority to grant such permission; only the Association’s Board could do so.

• Permitted Businesses: The Association does allow certain home-based businesses that do not generate traffic or parking, such as telecommuting and teaching online classes. These do not require explicit Board permission.

• Origin of Complaint: The Board became aware of the Wilkeys’ business operation when another resident brought the issue to its attention. Ms. Duistermars was unaware of any specific complaints filed against the Wilkeys regarding traffic, parking, or noise.

Conclusions of Law and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision was based on the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence.” The core legal conclusions were as follows:

1. CC&Rs as a Binding Contract: The CC&Rs constitute a contract between the parties, and its terms must be complied with.

2. Unambiguous Language: The language in Article 3, Section 3.1 is clear and unambiguous. It is therefore enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

3. Violation Established: The preponderance of evidence demonstrated that the Wilkeys were operating a business from their unit. The Wilkeys’ own admission that two employees drive to and park at the unit to conduct business was sufficient to prove that their business “is creating both traffic and parking.”

4. Violation is Absolute: The ALJ noted there is no requirement in the CC&Rs that the traffic or parking must cause a separate violation or complaint. The mere fact that the business creates traffic and parking is sufficient to trigger the prohibition.

5. Finding of Violation: Based on the evidence, the Wilkeys are in violation of CC&R Article 3, Section 3.1.

6. Penalty Authority: Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02, the ALJ has the authority to order compliance and levy a civil penalty. A penalty of $500.00 was deemed appropriate given the unambiguous nature of the violation.

7. Filing Fee Denial: The Association’s request for a refund of its filing fee was denied, as it cited no authority showing this was within the tribunal’s power.

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders to Respondents Layne C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey:

• Cease Business Operations: Within thirty-five (35) days of the effective date of the Order, the Respondents must comply with CC&R Article 3, section 3.1 by ceasing business operations at 720 E. North Lane, Unit 1 (Lot 50), Phoenix, Arizona.

• Pay Civil Penalty: Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the Order, the Respondents must pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department of Real Estate.

• Rehearing Notice: This order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.