Tag Archives: VMT

Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-07
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keith A. Shadden Counsel —
Respondent Las Brisas Community Association Counsel Emily Cooper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 5.10 & Article 5.12 of CC&Rs (Las Brisas Community Association)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing the HOA used incorrect CC&R sections for the violation concerning reflective material on garage door glass cutouts. The ALJ concluded that the plain meaning of "window" in CC&R Section 5.10 applies to any transparent opening and does not exclude garages.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by using incorrect sections for the violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts.

Key Issues & Findings

Allegation that Respondent is using incorrect CC&R section (5.10) to create violation for garage door glass cutouts which fall under section 5.12.

Petitioner alleged the HOA misapplied CC&R Section 5.10 (Windows) to enforce a violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts, asserting that Section 5.10 was not intended to cover garage doors as they are addressed under Section 5.12.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Window Restriction, Garage Door, Reflective Material, Planned Communities Act, Burden of Proof, Violation Notice
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Decision Documents

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1314210.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:25 (45.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316546.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:26 (59.6 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325514.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:26 (71.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325661.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:26 (88.3 KB)

Jeremy R. Whittaker vs The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-06-05
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeremy R. Whittaker Counsel —
Respondent The Val Vista Lakes Community Association Counsel Josh Bolen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party as Respondent admitted violating Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and comply with the Bylaws. However, the request for a civil penalty was denied because Petitioner failed to meet their burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet its burden to establish that a civil penalty should be imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to require Board Candidate disclosure of familial ties and conflicts of interest.

Respondent admitted that the 2023 Board Candidate Application form failed to comply with Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws by not requiring disclosure of familial ties, business, or conflicts of interest, as required for Board candidates.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 (filing fee refund) within thirty days and directed to comply with Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws. Civil penalty denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws

Decision Documents

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1297701.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:22 (46.2 KB)

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1297767.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:23 (47.1 KB)

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1301723.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:23 (56.1 KB)

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1301746.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:23 (45.1 KB)

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1304724.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:23 (47.6 KB)

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1314414.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:23 (92.7 KB)

Sharon M. Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H030-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-06-02
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sharon Maiden Counsel —
Respondent Val Vista Lakes Community Association Counsel Josh Bolen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws
Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition is denied, as she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law) or selectively enforced Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws regarding term limits.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on both issues. The closed board meeting was authorized for discussing legal advice, and the HOA's interpretation of the term limit provision aligned with the amendment's purpose to prevent Board members from serving long terms.

Key Issues & Findings

Selective enforcement of Bylaws regarding term limits.

Petitioner alleged Respondent selectively enforced the 2021 Bylaws amendment concerning term limits by retroactively applying the two-term limit to disqualify her 2024 candidacy.

Orders: Petition denied. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Failure to hold an open meeting to decide candidacy disqualification.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated open meeting laws by holding a closed executive session vote on October 11, 2024, to disqualify her candidacy.

Orders: Petition denied. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaws, Term Limits, Open Meeting Law, Selective Enforcement, ADR
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1272425.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:04 (57.7 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1272426.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:05 (49.7 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1282372.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:05 (60.5 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1282375.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:05 (9.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1284492.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:05 (56.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1288176.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:05 (60.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1288177.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:06 (7.4 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1293820.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:06 (41.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1313134.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:06 (114.8 KB)

Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC. vs Matthew P. Petrovic

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC Counsel Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Respondent Matthew P. Petrovic Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.

Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision

Respondent Matthew Petrovic successfully requested rehearing of the original ALJ decision, alleging errors of law, improper evidence rejection, procedural irregularities, and that the findings were arbitrary or capricious regarding alleged HOA enforcement violations (landscape, paint, walkway denial).

Orders: The Commissioner granted the rehearing request based on grounds of error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law, and that the findings or decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Rehearing, Procedural Error, Arbitrary Decision, Selective Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Decision Documents

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1344402.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:46 (57.4 KB)

Allan, Joseph P v. The Springs Condominiums Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-03-31
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joseph P. Allan Counsel —
Respondent The Springs Condominiums Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner met his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A). Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, and Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide access to financial and other records within ten business days.

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to allow Petitioner to examine original invoices for May 2024 (requested July 9, 2024) and bank statements from four accounts (requested September 23, 2024) within the required ten business days, despite receiving the requests through board members.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) going forward. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, records request, A.R.S. 33-1258, prevailing party, condominium association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Decision Documents

25F-H018-REL Decision – 1263777.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:43 (48.3 KB)

25F-H018-REL Decision – 1288586.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:44 (105.9 KB)

Keystone Owners Association V. Bernadette M. Bennett

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-12-09
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keystone Owners Association Counsel Erica L. Mortenson
Respondent Bernadette M. Bennett Counsel Thomas A. Walcott

Alleged Violations

Mountain Park Association CC&Rs Art. IV, Sec. 2; Keystone CC&Rs Art. V, Sec. 5.19; Rules (35% Frontage Limit)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed. The Respondent (Homeowner) was found in violation of Governing Documents for installing an unapproved driveway extension that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the $1,500.00 filing fee and comply with all Governing Documents henceforth. No civil penalty was levied.

Why this result: Respondent failed to obtain prior written approval for the driveway alteration and failed to prove the affirmative defense of laches.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Driveway Extension Exceeding 35% of Total Yard Frontage Area

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by installing a driveway extension exceeding 35% of the total yard frontage area without prior written approval. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred and the Respondent failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $1,500.00 for the filing fee and comply henceforth with the Governing Documents.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, ARC, Driveway, Frontage Area, CC&Rs, Laches
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Decision Documents

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1159036.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (52.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180542.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (49.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180545.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198622.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (50.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198623.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1225107.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (52.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227639.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (48.7 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227642.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (5.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1230660.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (45.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1241815.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (48.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1250037.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (113.0 KB)

Michael J Morris v. StarPass Master Homeowner Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H030-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-04-23
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J Morris Counsel —
Respondent StarPass Master Homeowner Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party based on the finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold required annual meetings of the Association’s members since 2010. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804. Petitioner failed to establish the remaining alleged violations concerning the Declarant's right to appoint the Board or violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1810 and 33-1817, or most CC&R sections.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1810 and 33-1817, or the cited sections of the CC&Rs or Bylaws related to the Declarant's power to appoint the board.

Key Issues & Findings

Declarant control, board appointment without vote or meeting, and failure to hold annual meetings

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated multiple statutes and governing documents by allowing the Declarant to solely appoint the Board of Directors and failing to hold annual meetings. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to notice or hold annual members meetings since 2010. All other alleged violations were not established.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 and directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • Bylaw Article Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 2(b)
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 5
  • CC&Rs Article 11 Section 8

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Declarant Control, Annual Meetings, Filing Fee Refund, HOA Board Appointment
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • Bylaw Article Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 2(b)
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 5
  • CC&Rs Article 11 Section 8

Decision Documents

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1154358.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:30 (41.8 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1156053.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:30 (7.4 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1160349.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:30 (53.8 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1170315.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:31 (114.1 KB)

Susannah Sabnekar v. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-26
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Susannah Sabnekar Counsel —
Respondent Four Peaks Vista Owners Association Counsel Maria McKee

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the statutes cited by the petitioner regarding conveyance of common elements (A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217) do not apply to the leasing of common elements, which was the action taken by the Respondent HOA.

Why this result: The statutes cited by the Petitioner apply to conveyances, but the disputed action was determined to be a lease, which is treated separately under Arizona's Condominium Act.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Board violated statute by conveying a portion of common elements without a vote from all homeowners.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217 by approving a lease agreement granting the Declarant (Four Peaks) the right to use a portion of the clubhouse as a management office, arguing this action constituted a conveyance requiring an 80% homeowner vote. The ALJ ruled that the statutes apply only to conveyances, not leases, and found no violation.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 33-1252
  • 33-1217
  • 33-1242
  • 33-1225

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium Act, Lease vs Conveyance, Common Elements, Declarant Rights, Motion to Dismiss
Additional Citations:

  • 33-1252
  • 33-1217
  • 33-1242
  • 33-1225
  • 33-1226

Decision Documents

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1097274.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:42 (52.7 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099296.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:43 (50.8 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099320.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:43 (48.2 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1106232.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:43 (118.8 KB)

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H058-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-04
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R. Ashley Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC Counsel James Brewer, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner John R. Ashley's petition against Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. The ALJ found that the HOA did not violate the Bylaws regarding the minimum number of directors because compliance was impossible due to lack of member interest, and the issue was subsequently moot as the board currently met the minimum requirement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut Respondent’s claim that it actively sought a third board member. The Respondent was exonerated under the legal doctrine of impossibility of performance, and the current compliance with the three-member minimum rendered the dispute moot.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation regarding the minimum number of Board Directors

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws by having only two Board Directors dismiss and order a redo of the 1/9/2023 Annual Membership Meeting for 3/7/2023, arguing that three directors were required to properly handle the Association’s affairs.

Orders: The petition is dismissed. Respondent was unable to comply with the Bylaws requiring three directors due to impossibility (lack of member interest) while actively seeking compliance, and the dispute is currently moot as the board now has three or more members.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
  • Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: impossibility of performance, board structure, election dispute, bylaw violation, Planned Communities Act, mootness
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
  • Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Decision Documents

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1075520.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:09 (45.8 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078604.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:09 (47.9 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078608.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:10 (5.5 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1099484.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:10 (104.5 KB)

John W Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-09-20
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John W. Gray Counsel —
Respondent Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARS § 33-1248(B), Bylaw Article 2.1
ARS § 33-1258, Bylaw Article 1.6
ARS § 33-1243(B), Bylaw Article 3.2

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on Issue 2 (Records Requests violation), resulting in the refund of the $500 filing fee. Respondent prevailed on Issue 1 (Failure to Hold Meetings, found moot) and Issue 3 (Board Legitimacy, insufficient evidence). No civil penalty was imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 1 because the failure to hold meetings was resolved and deemed moot. Petitioner lost Issue 3 due to insufficient evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

No meeting was held in 2020, 2021, or 2022

Petitioner alleged violation for failure to hold annual meetings in 2020, 2021, and 2022. The Board admitted meetings were not held due to the pandemic but held an annual meeting in 2023.

Orders: —

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARS § 33-1248(B)
  • Bylaw Article 2.1
  • ARS § 33-1250(C)

Petitioner has received no response to multiple requests for information

Petitioner made multiple requests for information and records (including meeting minutes from 2018-2023 and fire suppression invoices from 2014-2023). Respondent failed to provide copies of minutes from 2018-2019 and records related to the sprinkler system.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 filing fee refund within thirty (30) days and directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 and Bylaw Article 1.6 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARS § 33-1258
  • Bylaw Article 1.6

The people claiming to be the Board are not legitimate, not duly elected, and have appointed themselves to successive terms of office

Petitioner alleged the board members were illegitimate because annual meetings lacked quorum (2018, 2019) or were not held (2020-2022), leading directors to continue in office unlawfully.

Orders: —

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARS § 33-1243(B)
  • Bylaw Article 3.2
  • A.R.S. § 10-3805(E)

Decision Documents

23F-H063-REL Decision – 1081668.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:25 (46.0 KB)

23F-H063-REL Decision – 1095241.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:25 (143.2 KB)