Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918028-REL-RHG
Briefing Document: Wiercinski v. Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings, arguments, and outcomes from two administrative hearings concerning a petition filed by homeowner Patricia Wiercinski against the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association (the “HOA”). The core of the dispute is the HOA’s alleged failure to produce records related to a June 19, 2017 incident where Wiercinski’s husband, Wayne Coates, allegedly engaged in belligerent and threatening behavior toward potential buyers of a neighboring property, causing the prospective sale to collapse.
Across an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky consistently ruled in favor of the HOA. The central finding was that the key evidence—an email chain discussing the incident among HOA board members—did not constitute an official “record of the association” under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805. The communications were deemed informal discussions among neighbors that never resulted in official board business or action. Consequently, the HOA was under no legal obligation to produce these private emails or to provide an un-redacted version to the petitioner. The judge also found the HOA’s decision to redact the names of the potential buyers and their agent was reasonable, given testimony regarding Mr. Coates’ alleged history of bullying and intimidation.
1. Case Overview
The matter involves a single-issue petition filed by Patricia Wiercinski alleging the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. violated Arizona law by refusing to produce documents concerning its response to a specific incident involving her husband.
Case Detail
Information
Petitioner
Patricia Wiercinski
Respondent
Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.
Case Number
19F-H1918028-REL
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Initial Hearing
January 10, 2019
Rehearing
April 22, 2019
Core Allegation
Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Access to association financial and other records)
2. The Incident of June 19, 2017
On June 19, 2017, potential buyers, along with their architect and son, visited a vacant lot for sale on Puntenney Road, across the street from the residence of Patricia Wiercinski and Wayne Coates.
• The Confrontation: An email from the prospective buyers described an encounter with an “elderly man” (identified as Wayne Coates) who “came out of a home to the west and began to yell and scream.”
• Alleged Behavior: Mr. Coates’ actions were characterized as “belligerent and cursing,” “verbally abusive,” and “extremely confrontational.” He allegedly told the visitors that “nothing was for sale around here” and that they “needed to leave immediately.”
• Immediate Consequence: The incident directly resulted in the termination of the potential sale. In their email, the buyers stated: “would we want to live next to this type of behavior of [a] neighbor? The answer is no… due to the volatile potential of this man, we have decided at this point to remove it from our list.” They further stated they would avoid any property that required them to “drive past or have the chance of contact with this individual.”
3. The Central Evidence: The Email Correspondence
The focal point of the legal dispute is an email chain dated June 19-20, 2017, that was voluntarily produced by the HOA after the petition was filed. The emails reveal the immediate fallout from the incident and the initial reactions of the property owner and HOA board members.
• John Allen (Property Owner): After being informed by his realtor, Mr. Allen shared the complaint with the HOA Board of Directors (BOD), stating, “an owner should not be allowed to interfere with a potential sale of another owner’s property.” He indicated he would “employ legal action if necessary.”
• Gregg Arthur (HOA Director and Realtor): In an email to the Board, Mr. Arthur expressed significant concern, framing the situation as being “as bad as it gets” in the real estate world. He wrote, “Wayne thru his actions appears to have interfered with and destroyed a property sale. We need to meet and take action on this matter as it will have a broad and chilling effect amongst the realtor community (effecting us all)… action needs to be taken and quickly to prevent this from happening again.”
• Joe Zielinski (HOA Director): Mr. Zielinski’s email suggested potential legal consequences for Mr. Coates, noting his “arrest record and prison term and criminal history.” He stated that the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office (YCSO) “may file charges against Wayne for disorderly conduct/harassment.” He concluded, “I don’t believe Wayne (and Patricia’s) aggressive and disruptive behavior will stop.”
4. Legal Proceedings and Evolving Arguments
The case was adjudicated over two separate hearings, during which the Petitioner’s legal theory shifted significantly.
4.1. Initial Hearing (January 10, 2019)
• Petitioner’s Argument: Ms. Wiercinski alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce official documents showing its deliberations and decisions regarding the incident. She argued that because a quorum of the board was included in the email discussion, they were required to formally address the matter and produce a record of their decision, even if the decision was to take no action. She also noted the failure to produce a map referenced in one of the emails.
• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended it had not violated any statute. Its representatives testified that the email chain was an informal communication among board members on their personal servers, not an official HOA record. They stated the Board never formally discussed, voted on, or took any action regarding the incident, as it did not constitute a violation of any governing documents the HOA was empowered to enforce.
• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioner failed to establish that any official documents regarding the incident existed that the HOA had failed to produce.
4.2. Rehearing (April 22, 2019)
• Basis for Rehearing: The rehearing was granted after Ms. Wiercinski alleged misconduct by the judge.
• Petitioner’s Shift in Argument: Ms. Wiercinski changed her theory of the case. She no longer argued that a formal decision was required. Instead, she contended that the email string itself was an official record of the association. Therefore, she argued, A.R.S. § 33-1805 required the HOA to produce a complete, un-redacted version, asserting she had a right to know the identity of her husband’s accusers.
• Respondent’s Position: The HOA reiterated that the emails were private communications and not official records. The HOA President, Mike Olson, testified that the names of the potential purchasers and their real estate agent were redacted because “Mr. Coates had a history of bullying and intimidating people.” The Community Manager, Kathy Andrews, affirmed that the incident was never entered into the HOA’s official records because the board took no action and viewed it as a personal dispute outside its authority.
• Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The ALJ reaffirmed that the email string was not a “record of the association” and, therefore, the statute did not require the HOA to provide an un-redacted version.
5. Key Findings and Conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
Across both decisions, Judge Mihalsky’s conclusions of law were consistent and decisive.
• Informal Discussion vs. Official Business: The judge ruled that the “mere fact that a quorum of Board members may discuss a topic does not make it official Board business, especially if they do not end up taking any action to make a matter board business.”
• Status of the Email Chain: The emails were determined to be informal communications, not “financial and other records of the association” subject to A.R.S. § 33-1805. As such, the HOA was not legally obligated to produce them.
• No Violation of Statute: Because the Petitioner did not establish that any official documents existed regarding the incident, her petition was denied. In the rehearing, the petition was dismissed because the email string was not an official record requiring un-redacted disclosure.
• Reasonableness of Redactions: The judge commented that the HOA president’s testimony—that he redacted the names out of fear that Mr. Coates would harass the individuals involved—”does not appear unreasonable.”
• Burden of Proof: In both hearings, the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated the statute.
6. Key Individuals and Their Roles
Individual
Role / Significance
Patricia Wiercinski
Petitioner; homeowner who filed the petition against the HOA for withholding records.
Wayne Coates
Petitioner’s Husband; central figure in the June 19, 2017 incident. Alleged to have a history of aggressive behavior.
Mike Olson
HOA President; testified that emails were informal and names were redacted to protect individuals from Mr. Coates.
Gregg Arthur
HOA Director / Realtor; warned that Mr. Coates’ actions destroyed a sale and would have a “chilling effect.”
Kathy Andrews
Community Manager (HOAMCO); testified that no official records of the incident exist in the HOA’s archives.
John Allen
Property Owner; was attempting to sell the lot and reported the incident to the HOA.
Joe Zielinski
HOA Director; mentioned Mr. Coates’ criminal history in an email and suggested his disruptive behavior would continue.
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge; presided over both hearings and issued decisions dismissing the petition.
