Case Summary
| Case ID | 22F-H2221019-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2022-01-18 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Adam D. Stone |
| Outcome | partial |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Brenda C Norman | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Rancho Del Lago Community Association | Counsel | Mackenzie Hill, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
Section 3.1(D)(3) of the CC&Rs
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&R regarding flood illumination direction and ARC approval process.
Petitioner alleged that Respondent (RDLCA) violated CC&R 3.1(D)(3) because a neighbor installed flood lights shining onto Petitioner's property without RDLCA approval (ARC approval). The ALJ found RDLCA in violation because the lights were never approved.
Orders: RDLCA must comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was levied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- A.R.S. § 32-2199
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09