Tag Archives: Emily Cooper, Esq.

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)

Steven Kramer vs. Camelback House, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Steven Kramer Counsel —
Respondent Camelback House, Inc. Counsel Emily Cooper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent, Camelback House, Inc., violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C) by failing to properly and timely respond to the Petitioner's response to a Notice of Violation. Petitioner Steven Kramer was deemed the prevailing party and was awarded the reimbursement of his $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to properly respond to Petitioner's response to a Notice of Violation

The Respondent violated the statute by failing to provide a timely written response to the unit owner (Petitioner) within ten business days of receiving the unit owner's response to a Notice of Violation. The Tribunal also concluded that the original Notice of Violation failed to sufficiently identify the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, as required by the statute.

Orders: Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner the filing fees of $500.00 within 30 days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA violation response time, notice of violation requirements, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121063-REL Decision – 913417.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:39 (113.9 KB)