Case Summary
| Case ID | 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2017-12-11 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Thomas Shedden |
| Outcome | no_win |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | James and Shawna Larson | Counsel | Lisa M. Hanger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation | Counsel | Nathan Tennyson |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R Sections 9 and 9(b)
Outcome Summary
The ALJ dismissed the Petitioners' complaint, ruling that the HOA acted reasonably and within its authority under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) by requiring homeowners to remove their limited common element patio covers for necessary maintenance and requiring the homeowners to bear the associated cost.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Respondent HOA committed a violation of the condominium documents or statutes.
Key Issues & Findings
Authority of HOA to require removal of a limited common element (patio cover) for maintenance and allocation of associated costs.
Petitioners alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by mandating the removal of their patio cover at their expense to facilitate building painting. The ALJ found the HOA's proposed plan was reasonable and authorized by CC&R Sections 9 and 9(b), and that Petitioners, under A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), must bear the cost of removing and reinstalling the limited common element.
Orders: Petitioners' petition is dismissed. Respondent Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation is deemed to be the prevailing party. Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove and reinstall their patio cover.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
- CC&R Section 9
- CC&R Section 9(b)
- A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
- Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
- A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
- A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
- A.R.S. § 33-1806(E)
- Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
- Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1717038-REL-RHG Decision – 605540.pdf
Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The core conflict centered on the HOA’s directive that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project.
The case progressed through two distinct phases. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissing the Larsons’ petition for a lack of a “justiciable controversy,” reasoning that the HOA had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the dispute speculative. However, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected this recommendation, finding the matter was “ripe for adjudication,” and ordered a full hearing on the merits.
In the final decision, a second ALJ dismissed the Larsons’ petition and ruled in favor of the HOA. The judge found the HOA’s plan to be reasonable and necessary for the proper and safe completion of the project, based on credible testimony from the project manager. The decision affirmed the HOA’s authority under its CC&Rs to require the removal of the structure. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona law. Consequently, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, the homeowners (the Larsons) are exclusively responsible for all costs associated with it, including its removal and potential reinstallation.
Procedural History and Jurisdictional Rulings
Initial Petition and Dismissal Recommendation
On June 16, 2017, James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate against their HOA, alleging a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, the initial filing did not specify which provisions had been violated.
Upon inquiry, the Petitioners’ counsel admitted via email that no specific provision of the CC&Rs had yet been violated. Instead, their concern was that section 10(a) would be violated if the HOA acted on its threat to forcibly remove their patio cover and charge them for the cost.
This led to the “ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY,” issued on August 25, 2017, by Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. The key findings of this order were:
• Speculative Harm: The Judge found that the HOA’s actions “have not yet been undertaken and our [are] speculative at this juncture.”
• Lack of Jurisdiction: The order stated that the Office of Administrative Hearings’ jurisdiction, per A.R.S. § 32-2199, is limited to adjudicating existing violations of community documents, not potential future ones.
• Misunderstanding by Both Parties: The order noted, “Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” The Petitioners were seeking a ruling on a future action, while the Respondent was urging the Tribunal to find the Petitioners had violated the CC&Rs, which was not the subject of the petition.
• Recommended Forum: The Judge suggested that the appropriate forum for the Petitioners would be a declaratory judgment action in superior court.
Rejection of Dismissal and Re-Hearing
On August 31, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued an “ORDER REJECTING RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL.”
• The Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s finding that the matter lacked a justiciable controversy.
• The order cited a letter from the Respondent dated June 1, 2017, which posed the question: “Is the presence of the awning a violation of the Association’s governing documents?”
• This question was deemed sufficient to make the matter “ripe for adjudication.”
• The Commissioner requested that the hearing be rescheduled for a ruling on the matter. A re-hearing was subsequently conducted on November 20, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.
Analysis of the Merits of the Dispute
The re-hearing focused on the substantive conflict: whether the HOA had the authority to compel the Larsons to remove their patio cover at their own expense for the maintenance project.
Respondent’s (HOA) Case
The HOA, consisting of 169 units, initiated a project to make necessary repairs to its twenty-five buildings and then have them painted. The HOA’s position was based on the following points:
• Legal Authority: The HOA asserted its authority under sections 9 and 9(b) of its CC&Rs, which state that the HOA is responsible for maintaining building exteriors and that “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the… [building] exteriors… shall be taken by the [Respondent].”
• Project Necessity: The project manager, Wayne King, provided testimony that the HOA’s board deemed credible and reasonable.
◦ Safety: King stated that all five bidding contractors required the patio covers to be removed to ensure a safe work environment as mandated by the Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA).
◦ Logistics: Standard scaffolding would not fit without removing the covers, commercial scaffolding would not provide full access, a forklift was not viable due to overhead power lines, and allowing painters to walk on homeowner patio covers was unsafe.
◦ Quality of Work: The project involved sanding, power washing, and patching before painting to “do the job right.” Many covers had been improperly flashed, causing damage to the buildings that needed repair.
◦ Warranty: The paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, such as the Larsons, were permitted to paint their own units.
Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Case
The Larsons, who purchased their unit in 1999 with the wooden patio cover already in place, contested the HOA’s demands.
• Challenge to Authority: The Petitioners argued that the HOA had no legal authority to demand the removal of their patio cover.
• Unreasonable Cost: They asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation was unreasonable, submitting two bids:
◦ One bid quoted $1,250 to remove and dispose of the cover and $3,980 to remove and rebuild it with new wood.
◦ A second bid quoted $5,975 to remove and then replace the structure.
• Proposed Alternative: In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense.
• Compromise Offer: During the November 20, 2017 hearing, after hearing the project manager’s testimony, Ms. Larson offered that they would agree not to reinstall the patio cover if the HOA would pay for its removal.
Final Administrative Law Judge Decision
On December 11, 2017, ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision dismissing the Larsons’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.
Key Findings and Conclusions of Law
Finding/Conclusion
Details
Standard of Review
The HOA’s decisions regarding maintenance and repair are given deference, provided they act reasonably.
Reasonableness of HOA Action
Based on the “credible testimony” of Wayne King, the Judge found that the HOA’s proposed plan for repairing and painting the buildings, which required the removal of patio covers, was reasonable.
HOA Authority
CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were found to be “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”
Patio Cover Classification
The Petitioners’ patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).
Cost Responsibility
The central issue of payment was decided by statute. The Judge concluded that under a “reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C),” any common expense associated with a limited common element “shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.”
Final Order
Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:
“The evidence of record supports a conclusion that Respondent has authority to require Petitioners to remove their patio cover to allow the building to be properly and safely painted, and that Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.”
The final order was that the Petitioners’ petition be dismissed, and the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.