Case Summary
| Case ID | 21F-H2121065-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2021-11-01 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome | partial |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $1,000.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Brian D. Sopatyk | Counsel | Jacob A. Kubert, Esq. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc. | Counsel | Penny L. Koepke, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issues 1 and 3, while Respondent was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00. No civil penalty was found appropriate.
Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 2 because he failed to prove the Respondent's no-pet policy was arbitrarily or unreasonably applied.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that screen doors are not permitted in Xanadu under CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2), and CC&R Article 7 (Architectural Committee authority) does not override this explicit prohibition.
Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2) going forward.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
- CC&R Article 7
Alleged violation of CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
Petitioner alleged violation concerning the 'no-pet' policy. The ALJ concluded that Respondent is not required to allow pets, but may allow them with Board approval, and the Petitioner did not establish that the policy was arbitrarily or unreasonably applied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
- A.R.S. § 12-548
Alleged violation of CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
The ALJ concluded that the marquee is common area, and the Association was not authorized under CC&R Article 6 § 2(a) to charge a separate assessment or rental fee for its use. Furthermore, there was no evidence the $50 assessment complied with CC&R Article 6 § 5 (special assessment requirements).
Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&R Article 6 § 2(a) going forward.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
- CC&R Article 6 § 5
- A.R.S. § 12-548
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
- A.R.S. § 12-548
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
- CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
- CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
- CC&R Article 6 § 5
- CC&R Article 7