Tag Archives: Nathan Tennyson

Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221009-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-04-25
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sam & Pipper O' Shaughnessy Stangl Counsel —
Respondent Sabino Vista Townhouse Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

Article VI of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge deemed Petitioners the prevailing party. Respondent HOA violated Article VI of the CC&Rs by failing to maintain and remove rubbish from the natural desert area within the Common Area up to the exterior building lines, as the Board's determination not to maintain the area lacked proper authority without a CC&R amendment. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and refund the Petitioners' filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA maintenance obligations for common area up to exterior building lines

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures, specifically a natural desert area within the Common Area. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs require the Association to maintain and remove all rubbish within its property up to the exterior building lines, and the Board lacked the authority to refuse maintenance of the natural desert area without amending the CC&Rs.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with the requirements of Article VI of the CC&Rs going forward and must pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article VI of the CC&Rs
  • 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)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Maintenance, CC&R Interpretation, Common Area Maintenance, Filing Fee Refund, Prevailing Party
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)
  • 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)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221009-REL Decision – 927714.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:04 (95.3 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL Decision – 927747.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:04 (37.5 KB)

Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jennie Bennett Counsel Maxwell Riddiough
Respondent Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the backflow flap responsible for the sewage overflow was determined to be on the Petitioner’s private property (covered under CC&R Section 15) and not a common element area that the HOA was responsible for maintaining under CC&R Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

The Petitioner alleges that Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association violated community documents CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) in a single-issue petition.

Petitioner claimed the HOA (Respondent) violated CC&Rs 12(c) and 12(h)(1) by refusing to compensate her for repairs to a malfunctioning backflow flap after experiencing a sewage overflow. Respondent argued the backflow flap was located on Petitioner's private property and was her responsibility under CC&R Section 15, especially since the prior Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded before the incident.

Orders: Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 12(c)
  • CC&Rs Section 12(h)(1)
  • CC&Rs Section 15

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, CC&R violation, maintenance responsibility, private property, sewer maintenance policy
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Section 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(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019002-REL-RHG Decision – 771959.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:27 (103.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute concerned liability for the repair of a malfunctioning backflow valve that caused a sewage overflow in the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner, Jennie Bennett, alleged the Homeowners Association (HOA) violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by refusing to cover the repair costs.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision hinged on the physical location of the backflow valve. Evidence, including a plat map and photographs, established that the valve was situated on Ms. Bennett’s private property, not in a common area. Consequently, under Section 15 of the CC&Rs, maintenance and repair were deemed the homeowner’s responsibility.

A key factor in the dispute was the HOA’s rescission of a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” just 18 days before the incident. This policy had previously obligated the HOA to share repair costs. However, the Judge found that once the policy was rescinded, the HOA was no longer bound by its terms. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that the backflow valve was a common element covered by the CC&Rs, leading to the dismissal of her case.

Case Background

• Case Number: 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG

• Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

• Decision Date: February 26, 2020

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera

Parties Involved

Name / Organization

Representation

Petitioner

Jennie Bennett

Maxwell Riddiough, attorney

Respondent

Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Nathan Tennyson, attorney (Brown|Olcott, PLLC)

Management

Cadden Community Management

(Managed Respondent)

Witness

Vanessa Lubinsky

Community Manager for Respondent

Allegation

On July 10, 2019, Jennie Bennett filed a petition alleging that the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the community’s CC&Rs. These sections pertain to the HOA’s responsibility to maintain common elements, including sewer lines.

Timeline of Key Events

March 2017

The HOA adopts a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” outlining the process for sewage maintenance issues.

February 13, 2019

The HOA Board rescinds the Sewer Maintenance Policy after receiving legal guidance.

March 3, 2019

Petitioner Jennie Bennett experiences a sewage overflow caused by a malfunctioning backflow valve.

March – May 2019

Petitioner presents a repair estimate to the HOA Board, which does not address her concerns at the March, April, or May meetings.

May 22, 2019

The HOA responds to the Petitioner, but only after receiving a letter from her attorney.

July 10, 2019

Petitioner files a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Undated

Petitioner gathers 97 signatures on a grassroots petition asking the HOA to cover the repair costs due to the lack of notice.

February 7, 2020

The administrative hearing is held.

February 26, 2020

The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision dismissing the petition.

Central Arguments and Evidence

The case centered on whether the backflow valve was a common element maintained by the HOA or a fixture on private property maintained by the homeowner.

Petitioner’s Position (Jennie Bennett)

• Core Claim: The HOA was responsible for the repair cost based on its previous Sewer Maintenance Policy.

• Lack of Notification: The Petitioner testified that she was not notified that the policy had been rescinded on February 13, 2019, just two weeks before her sewage backup.

• HOA Inaction: The HOA failed to address her requests for reimbursement at three consecutive board meetings, only responding after her attorney sent a formal letter.

• Community Support: The Petitioner submitted a grassroots petition signed by 97 residents. The petition stated: “My shower backed up with feces March 3-my plumber said my flap on the back flow was gone-needed to be replace… I was told by Daniel at Cadden that the Board had rescinded the sewer policy Feb 13th-No written notice had gone out. I am asking to be covered because of the 2 week time frame and no notice.”

• Fear of Recurrence: Though no further overflows occurred, the Petitioner stated she “lived in fear of a future overflow.”

Respondent’s Position (Catalina Del Rey HOA)

• Core Claim: The backflow valve is located on the Petitioner’s private property and is therefore her responsibility under Section 15 of the CC&Rs.

• Physical Evidence: The HOA presented a plat map and photographs showing the backflow valve was located within the Petitioner’s property lines, “next to Petitioner’s walk up to her front door,” and not on common elements.

• Legal Justification for Policy Change: The HOA explained that the Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded after receiving legal guidance that it conflicted with the CC&Rs. The guidance clarified that backflow flaps are within individual homeowner units, making them a homeowner’s responsibility under Section 15.

• Procedural Correctness: HOA manager Vanessa Lubinsky testified that the rescission was a policy change, not a CC&R amendment, and therefore did not require a homeowner vote. She stated that notice of the rescission was sent to homeowners via both email and postal mail (postcards).

• Issue Classification: Ms. Lubinsky characterized the problem as a “plumbing issue, not a sewer issue, because it was located on Petitioner’s private property.”

Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision rested on the interpretation of three key sections of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

• Section 12(c): HOA Maintenance of Common Areas

◦ This section establishes the HOA’s duty to maintain common sewer lines.

• Section 12(h)(1): Assessments for Common Elements

◦ This section empowers the HOA to charge homeowners for the maintenance of common elements, including sewers.

• Section 15: Homeowner Utility Maintenance

◦ This section was pivotal, assigning responsibility for fixtures on private property to the homeowner.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the Petitioner failed to prove her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Key Findings

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, Jennie Bennett, bore the burden of proving that the HOA had violated the community documents.

2. Location is Determinative: The evidence presented, particularly the photos and plat map, conclusively showed that the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on the Petitioner’s private property and not in a common area.

3. Policy Rescission was Valid: The Judge acknowledged the timing of the policy change was “extremely unfortunate” for the Petitioner. However, once the Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded, the HOA was no longer obligated to share repair costs. The CC&Rs became the sole governing authority on the matter.

4. No Violation of CC&Rs: Because the flap was not a common element, the HOA’s refusal to pay for the repair did not constitute a violation of Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1). The responsibility fell to the homeowner under Section 15.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition be dismissed.”

The decision is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.


Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jennie Bennett Counsel Maxwell Riddiough
Respondent Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the backflow flap responsible for the sewage overflow was determined to be on the Petitioner’s private property (covered under CC&R Section 15) and not a common element area that the HOA was responsible for maintaining under CC&R Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

The Petitioner alleges that Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association violated community documents CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) in a single-issue petition.

Petitioner claimed the HOA (Respondent) violated CC&Rs 12(c) and 12(h)(1) by refusing to compensate her for repairs to a malfunctioning backflow flap after experiencing a sewage overflow. Respondent argued the backflow flap was located on Petitioner's private property and was her responsibility under CC&R Section 15, especially since the prior Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded before the incident.

Orders: Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 12(c)
  • CC&Rs Section 12(h)(1)
  • CC&Rs Section 15

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, CC&R violation, maintenance responsibility, private property, sewer maintenance policy
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Section 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(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019002-REL-RHG Decision – 771959.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:09:48 (103.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute concerned liability for the repair of a malfunctioning backflow valve that caused a sewage overflow in the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner, Jennie Bennett, alleged the Homeowners Association (HOA) violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by refusing to cover the repair costs.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision hinged on the physical location of the backflow valve. Evidence, including a plat map and photographs, established that the valve was situated on Ms. Bennett’s private property, not in a common area. Consequently, under Section 15 of the CC&Rs, maintenance and repair were deemed the homeowner’s responsibility.

A key factor in the dispute was the HOA’s rescission of a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” just 18 days before the incident. This policy had previously obligated the HOA to share repair costs. However, the Judge found that once the policy was rescinded, the HOA was no longer bound by its terms. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that the backflow valve was a common element covered by the CC&Rs, leading to the dismissal of her case.

Case Background

• Case Number: 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG

• Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

• Decision Date: February 26, 2020

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera

Parties Involved

Name / Organization

Representation

Petitioner

Jennie Bennett

Maxwell Riddiough, attorney

Respondent

Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Nathan Tennyson, attorney (Brown|Olcott, PLLC)

Management

Cadden Community Management

(Managed Respondent)

Witness

Vanessa Lubinsky

Community Manager for Respondent

Allegation

On July 10, 2019, Jennie Bennett filed a petition alleging that the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the community’s CC&Rs. These sections pertain to the HOA’s responsibility to maintain common elements, including sewer lines.

Timeline of Key Events

March 2017

The HOA adopts a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” outlining the process for sewage maintenance issues.

February 13, 2019

The HOA Board rescinds the Sewer Maintenance Policy after receiving legal guidance.

March 3, 2019

Petitioner Jennie Bennett experiences a sewage overflow caused by a malfunctioning backflow valve.

March – May 2019

Petitioner presents a repair estimate to the HOA Board, which does not address her concerns at the March, April, or May meetings.

May 22, 2019

The HOA responds to the Petitioner, but only after receiving a letter from her attorney.

July 10, 2019

Petitioner files a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Undated

Petitioner gathers 97 signatures on a grassroots petition asking the HOA to cover the repair costs due to the lack of notice.

February 7, 2020

The administrative hearing is held.

February 26, 2020

The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision dismissing the petition.

Central Arguments and Evidence

The case centered on whether the backflow valve was a common element maintained by the HOA or a fixture on private property maintained by the homeowner.

Petitioner’s Position (Jennie Bennett)

• Core Claim: The HOA was responsible for the repair cost based on its previous Sewer Maintenance Policy.

• Lack of Notification: The Petitioner testified that she was not notified that the policy had been rescinded on February 13, 2019, just two weeks before her sewage backup.

• HOA Inaction: The HOA failed to address her requests for reimbursement at three consecutive board meetings, only responding after her attorney sent a formal letter.

• Community Support: The Petitioner submitted a grassroots petition signed by 97 residents. The petition stated: “My shower backed up with feces March 3-my plumber said my flap on the back flow was gone-needed to be replace… I was told by Daniel at Cadden that the Board had rescinded the sewer policy Feb 13th-No written notice had gone out. I am asking to be covered because of the 2 week time frame and no notice.”

• Fear of Recurrence: Though no further overflows occurred, the Petitioner stated she “lived in fear of a future overflow.”

Respondent’s Position (Catalina Del Rey HOA)

• Core Claim: The backflow valve is located on the Petitioner’s private property and is therefore her responsibility under Section 15 of the CC&Rs.

• Physical Evidence: The HOA presented a plat map and photographs showing the backflow valve was located within the Petitioner’s property lines, “next to Petitioner’s walk up to her front door,” and not on common elements.

• Legal Justification for Policy Change: The HOA explained that the Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded after receiving legal guidance that it conflicted with the CC&Rs. The guidance clarified that backflow flaps are within individual homeowner units, making them a homeowner’s responsibility under Section 15.

• Procedural Correctness: HOA manager Vanessa Lubinsky testified that the rescission was a policy change, not a CC&R amendment, and therefore did not require a homeowner vote. She stated that notice of the rescission was sent to homeowners via both email and postal mail (postcards).

• Issue Classification: Ms. Lubinsky characterized the problem as a “plumbing issue, not a sewer issue, because it was located on Petitioner’s private property.”

Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision rested on the interpretation of three key sections of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

• Section 12(c): HOA Maintenance of Common Areas

◦ This section establishes the HOA’s duty to maintain common sewer lines.

• Section 12(h)(1): Assessments for Common Elements

◦ This section empowers the HOA to charge homeowners for the maintenance of common elements, including sewers.

• Section 15: Homeowner Utility Maintenance

◦ This section was pivotal, assigning responsibility for fixtures on private property to the homeowner.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the Petitioner failed to prove her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Key Findings

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, Jennie Bennett, bore the burden of proving that the HOA had violated the community documents.

2. Location is Determinative: The evidence presented, particularly the photos and plat map, conclusively showed that the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on the Petitioner’s private property and not in a common area.

3. Policy Rescission was Valid: The Judge acknowledged the timing of the policy change was “extremely unfortunate” for the Petitioner. However, once the Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded, the HOA was no longer obligated to share repair costs. The CC&Rs became the sole governing authority on the matter.

4. No Violation of CC&Rs: Because the flap was not a common element, the HOA’s refusal to pay for the repair did not constitute a violation of Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1). The responsibility fell to the homeowner under Section 15.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition be dismissed.”

The decision is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.


Robert L Greco v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-29
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert L Greco Counsel —
Respondent Bellasera Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Bellasera Community Association, Inc. did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the homeowner received constructive notice of the violation and fine structure, satisfying statutory requirements. The petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), as the evidence showed Petitioner received sufficient constructive notice of the alleged violation and had an opportunity to be heard or appeal.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the HOA violated statutory requirements regarding notice and imposition of monetary penalties/late fees, resulting in suspension of privileges.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) by imposing fines and suspending gate/clubhouse access without providing adequate (actual) notice of the violation and hearing opportunity, and by improperly imposing late fees. The ALJ found the HOA provided constructive notice, satisfying the statute, and was entitled to impose cumulative fines for the ongoing violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1220
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1090

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fines, Constructive notice, Statutory violation, Access suspension, Maintenance violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019018-REL Decision – 766844.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:34 (133.7 KB)

Robert L Greco v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-29
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert L Greco Counsel —
Respondent Bellasera Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Bellasera Community Association, Inc. did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the homeowner received constructive notice of the violation and fine structure, satisfying statutory requirements. The petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), as the evidence showed Petitioner received sufficient constructive notice of the alleged violation and had an opportunity to be heard or appeal.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the HOA violated statutory requirements regarding notice and imposition of monetary penalties/late fees, resulting in suspension of privileges.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) by imposing fines and suspending gate/clubhouse access without providing adequate (actual) notice of the violation and hearing opportunity, and by improperly imposing late fees. The ALJ found the HOA provided constructive notice, satisfying the statute, and was entitled to impose cumulative fines for the ongoing violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1220
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1090

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fines, Constructive notice, Statutory violation, Access suspension, Maintenance violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019018-REL Decision – 766844.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:10:10 (133.7 KB)

Rogelio A. Garcia vs. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-03-04
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rogelio A. Garcia Counsel —
Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1242

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Rogelio A. Garcia failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1242 regarding procedures for notices of violation. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The HOA was not required to provide the requested information because Petitioner did not respond by certified mail within 21 calendar days. The HOA also provided the process for contesting the notice, negating the requirement to inform the Petitioner of the option to petition for an administrative hearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory notice requirements for property violations.

Petitioner Rogelio A. Garcia alleged that Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The ALJ found that because Mr. Garcia did not submit a written response by certified mail within twenty-one days, Villagio was not required to provide the information required under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), such as the observer's name. Since Villagio notified Mr. Garcia of the appeal process in the notices, they were not required to provide notice of the right to petition for an administrative hearing.

Orders: Mr. Garcia’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Statute Violation, Notice Procedure, A.R.S. 33-1242, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918009-REL-RHG Decision – 692638.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:25 (89.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918009-REL-RHG


Administrative Hearing Brief: Garcia v. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Rogelio A. Garcia (Petitioner) and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was Mr. Garcia’s allegation that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1242 in its handling of a violation notice for an improper short-term rental.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition in both an initial hearing on October 30, 2018, and a subsequent rehearing on February 12, 2019. The rulings consistently found that Mr. Garcia failed to meet his burden of proof.

The central conclusion of the ALJ was that the statutory protections Mr. Garcia claimed he was denied under A.R.S. § 33-1242 are contingent upon the homeowner first taking a specific action: responding to a violation notice in writing via certified mail within 21 calendar days. It was undisputed in both hearings that Mr. Garcia did not take this step. Consequently, the HOA’s statutory obligations to provide the name of the violation’s observer and other specific information were never triggered. Furthermore, because the HOA’s violation notices included instructions for its own internal appeal process, it was not required by statute to inform Mr. Garcia of his option to petition for a separate administrative hearing.

Case Background and Chronology

The case centers on a series of violation notices sent by the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association to unit owner Rogelio A. Garcia concerning the use of his property. Mr. Garcia subsequently petitioned the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging procedural violations by the HOA.

March 8, 2018

Villagio sends Mr. Garcia a letter alleging his unit is being rented in violation of short-term lease provisions in the CC&Rs.

March 22, 2018

Villagio sends a second notice, indicating a $1,000 fine has been posted to Mr. Garcia’s account for the ongoing violation.

April 5, 2018

Villagio sends a third notice, indicating a $2,000 fine has been posted to his account.

August 17, 2018

Mr. Garcia files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging Villagio violated A.R.S. § 33-1242.

October 30, 2018

The initial evidentiary hearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

November 19, 2018

The ALJ issues a decision dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition.

January 3, 2019

The Arizona Department of Real Estate issues an order for a rehearing of the matter at Mr. Garcia’s request.

February 12, 2019

A rehearing is held, with testimony from Mr. Garcia and Tom Gordon, Villagio’s Community Manager.

March 4, 2019

The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition and affirming Villagio as the prevailing party. The order is made binding on the parties.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Rogelio A. Garcia)

Across both hearings, Mr. Garcia maintained that Villagio violated the procedural requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1242. His specific arguments included:

• Failure to Provide Observer’s Name: Villagio did not provide the first and last name of the person or persons who observed the alleged short-term rental violation.

• Denial of Administrative Hearing Notice: The HOA failed to provide written notice of his option to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department.

• Denial of Response Opportunity: Mr. Garcia contended that Villagio effectively prevented him from responding via certified mail within the 21-day statutory window. He based this claim on two points:

◦ The HOA issued a second notice and a fine only 14 days after the first notice, creating confusion and pressure that precluded a 21-day response.

◦ The notices included the phrase, “Please bring this issue into compliance within 10 days of this notice,” which he interpreted as the operative deadline, superseding the 21-day statutory period.

• In his petition, he stated the violation letter “did not allow for home owner to respond to violation by certified letter within 21 calendar days after the date of the notice.”

Respondent’s Arguments (Villagio at Tempe HOA)

Villagio’s defense, presented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq., centered on a direct interpretation of the statute and Mr. Garcia’s failure to adhere to its requirements.

• Petitioner’s Inaction as the Decisive Factor: Villagio’s primary argument was that Mr. Garcia never took the necessary step to trigger the protections of A.R.S. § 33-1242(C). The statute requires the homeowner to first send a written response via certified mail within 21 days. As Mr. Garcia did not do this, Villagio was under no obligation to provide the observer’s name or the other detailed information outlined in that subsection.

• Sufficiency of Internal Appeal Process: The HOA argued it was exempt from the requirement to provide notice of an administrative hearing because its violation letters fulfilled the statute’s alternative. The letters provided a clear process for contesting the notice, directing Mr. Garcia to a website (http://www.hoacompliance.com/Apoeals) to file an appeal with the Board of Directors.

• Statutory Inapplicability (Argument from Rehearing): During the rehearing, Villagio introduced a new argument that A.R.S. § 33-1242 was not applicable to the dispute at all. They contended the statute addresses violations related to the condition of a property, whereas Mr. Garcia’s violation was a matter of property use (i.e., short-term renting).

• No Prevention of Response: Villagio’s community manager, Tom Gordon, testified that the HOA does not restrict homeowners from responding to notices within the 21-day period. Mr. Garcia also admitted under cross-examination that no court order had prohibited him from sending a response.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Rulings

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sided with the Respondent in both decisions, dismissing the petition based on a strict interpretation of the law and the evidence presented.

Burden of Proof

The ALJ established in both rulings that Mr. Garcia, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving the alleged violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition to it.

Interpretation and Application of A.R.S. § 33-1242

The decisions hinged on a procedural reading of the statute:

1. Response Requirement is a Prerequisite: The ALJ found that the obligations for an HOA under subsection (C) of the statute—including providing the observer’s name, the date of the violation, and the specific rule violated—are expressly conditioned on the unit owner first providing a written response via certified mail within 21 days as stipulated in subsection (B).

2. Internal Appeal Process Satisfies Notice Requirement: The ALJ concluded that under subsection (D), an HOA is only required to provide notice of the option for a state administrative hearing if it has not already provided the process the unit owner must follow to contest the notice.

Rulings and Final Disposition

Based on this legal framework, the ALJ made the following conclusive findings:

• Petitioner Failed to Act: It was undisputed that Mr. Garcia did not respond in writing via certified mail to any of the three notices within the 21-day period. This failure meant Villagio’s statutory duty to provide the observer’s name was never activated.

• No Evidence of Prevention: Mr. Garcia failed to provide evidence showing how the issuance of subsequent notices legally prevented him from responding to the initial notice within its 21-day window. The ALJ found his belief that he only had 10 days was a misinterpretation and did not constitute prevention by the HOA.

• HOA Fulfilled Its Obligation: Villagio’s notices included instructions for contesting the violation through its own internal process. By doing so, Villagio satisfied the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1242(D) and was therefore not obligated to inform Mr. Garcia of the option to petition for a separate administrative hearing.

• Petition Dismissed: Because Mr. Garcia failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242, his petition was ordered dismissed in both the initial and rehearing decisions. The March 4, 2019, order was deemed binding on the parties, with any further appeal required to be filed with the superior court.


Rogelio A. Garcia vs. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-03-04
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rogelio A. Garcia Counsel —
Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1242

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Rogelio A. Garcia failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1242 regarding procedures for notices of violation. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The HOA was not required to provide the requested information because Petitioner did not respond by certified mail within 21 calendar days. The HOA also provided the process for contesting the notice, negating the requirement to inform the Petitioner of the option to petition for an administrative hearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory notice requirements for property violations.

Petitioner Rogelio A. Garcia alleged that Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The ALJ found that because Mr. Garcia did not submit a written response by certified mail within twenty-one days, Villagio was not required to provide the information required under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), such as the observer's name. Since Villagio notified Mr. Garcia of the appeal process in the notices, they were not required to provide notice of the right to petition for an administrative hearing.

Orders: Mr. Garcia’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Statute Violation, Notice Procedure, A.R.S. 33-1242, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918009-REL-RHG Decision – 692638.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:07:03 (89.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918009-REL-RHG


Administrative Hearing Brief: Garcia v. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Rogelio A. Garcia (Petitioner) and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was Mr. Garcia’s allegation that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1242 in its handling of a violation notice for an improper short-term rental.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition in both an initial hearing on October 30, 2018, and a subsequent rehearing on February 12, 2019. The rulings consistently found that Mr. Garcia failed to meet his burden of proof.

The central conclusion of the ALJ was that the statutory protections Mr. Garcia claimed he was denied under A.R.S. § 33-1242 are contingent upon the homeowner first taking a specific action: responding to a violation notice in writing via certified mail within 21 calendar days. It was undisputed in both hearings that Mr. Garcia did not take this step. Consequently, the HOA’s statutory obligations to provide the name of the violation’s observer and other specific information were never triggered. Furthermore, because the HOA’s violation notices included instructions for its own internal appeal process, it was not required by statute to inform Mr. Garcia of his option to petition for a separate administrative hearing.

Case Background and Chronology

The case centers on a series of violation notices sent by the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association to unit owner Rogelio A. Garcia concerning the use of his property. Mr. Garcia subsequently petitioned the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging procedural violations by the HOA.

March 8, 2018

Villagio sends Mr. Garcia a letter alleging his unit is being rented in violation of short-term lease provisions in the CC&Rs.

March 22, 2018

Villagio sends a second notice, indicating a $1,000 fine has been posted to Mr. Garcia’s account for the ongoing violation.

April 5, 2018

Villagio sends a third notice, indicating a $2,000 fine has been posted to his account.

August 17, 2018

Mr. Garcia files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging Villagio violated A.R.S. § 33-1242.

October 30, 2018

The initial evidentiary hearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

November 19, 2018

The ALJ issues a decision dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition.

January 3, 2019

The Arizona Department of Real Estate issues an order for a rehearing of the matter at Mr. Garcia’s request.

February 12, 2019

A rehearing is held, with testimony from Mr. Garcia and Tom Gordon, Villagio’s Community Manager.

March 4, 2019

The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition and affirming Villagio as the prevailing party. The order is made binding on the parties.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Rogelio A. Garcia)

Across both hearings, Mr. Garcia maintained that Villagio violated the procedural requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1242. His specific arguments included:

• Failure to Provide Observer’s Name: Villagio did not provide the first and last name of the person or persons who observed the alleged short-term rental violation.

• Denial of Administrative Hearing Notice: The HOA failed to provide written notice of his option to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department.

• Denial of Response Opportunity: Mr. Garcia contended that Villagio effectively prevented him from responding via certified mail within the 21-day statutory window. He based this claim on two points:

◦ The HOA issued a second notice and a fine only 14 days after the first notice, creating confusion and pressure that precluded a 21-day response.

◦ The notices included the phrase, “Please bring this issue into compliance within 10 days of this notice,” which he interpreted as the operative deadline, superseding the 21-day statutory period.

• In his petition, he stated the violation letter “did not allow for home owner to respond to violation by certified letter within 21 calendar days after the date of the notice.”

Respondent’s Arguments (Villagio at Tempe HOA)

Villagio’s defense, presented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq., centered on a direct interpretation of the statute and Mr. Garcia’s failure to adhere to its requirements.

• Petitioner’s Inaction as the Decisive Factor: Villagio’s primary argument was that Mr. Garcia never took the necessary step to trigger the protections of A.R.S. § 33-1242(C). The statute requires the homeowner to first send a written response via certified mail within 21 days. As Mr. Garcia did not do this, Villagio was under no obligation to provide the observer’s name or the other detailed information outlined in that subsection.

• Sufficiency of Internal Appeal Process: The HOA argued it was exempt from the requirement to provide notice of an administrative hearing because its violation letters fulfilled the statute’s alternative. The letters provided a clear process for contesting the notice, directing Mr. Garcia to a website (http://www.hoacompliance.com/Apoeals) to file an appeal with the Board of Directors.

• Statutory Inapplicability (Argument from Rehearing): During the rehearing, Villagio introduced a new argument that A.R.S. § 33-1242 was not applicable to the dispute at all. They contended the statute addresses violations related to the condition of a property, whereas Mr. Garcia’s violation was a matter of property use (i.e., short-term renting).

• No Prevention of Response: Villagio’s community manager, Tom Gordon, testified that the HOA does not restrict homeowners from responding to notices within the 21-day period. Mr. Garcia also admitted under cross-examination that no court order had prohibited him from sending a response.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Rulings

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sided with the Respondent in both decisions, dismissing the petition based on a strict interpretation of the law and the evidence presented.

Burden of Proof

The ALJ established in both rulings that Mr. Garcia, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving the alleged violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition to it.

Interpretation and Application of A.R.S. § 33-1242

The decisions hinged on a procedural reading of the statute:

1. Response Requirement is a Prerequisite: The ALJ found that the obligations for an HOA under subsection (C) of the statute—including providing the observer’s name, the date of the violation, and the specific rule violated—are expressly conditioned on the unit owner first providing a written response via certified mail within 21 days as stipulated in subsection (B).

2. Internal Appeal Process Satisfies Notice Requirement: The ALJ concluded that under subsection (D), an HOA is only required to provide notice of the option for a state administrative hearing if it has not already provided the process the unit owner must follow to contest the notice.

Rulings and Final Disposition

Based on this legal framework, the ALJ made the following conclusive findings:

• Petitioner Failed to Act: It was undisputed that Mr. Garcia did not respond in writing via certified mail to any of the three notices within the 21-day period. This failure meant Villagio’s statutory duty to provide the observer’s name was never activated.

• No Evidence of Prevention: Mr. Garcia failed to provide evidence showing how the issuance of subsequent notices legally prevented him from responding to the initial notice within its 21-day window. The ALJ found his belief that he only had 10 days was a misinterpretation and did not constitute prevention by the HOA.

• HOA Fulfilled Its Obligation: Villagio’s notices included instructions for contesting the violation through its own internal process. By doing so, Villagio satisfied the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1242(D) and was therefore not obligated to inform Mr. Garcia of the option to petition for a separate administrative hearing.

• Petition Dismissed: Because Mr. Garcia failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242, his petition was ordered dismissed in both the initial and rehearing decisions. The March 4, 2019, order was deemed binding on the parties, with any further appeal required to be filed with the superior court.


Rogelio A. Garcia vs. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-03-04
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rogelio A. Garcia Counsel —
Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition for rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the statutory details or the notice of the right to petition ADRE because the Petitioner failed to submit a written response by certified mail within 21 days of the violation notices.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the information listed in A.R.S. § 33-1242 (C) or the notice of right to petition in (D) because the Petitioner did not submit a written response by certified mail within twenty-one days, which is the triggering requirement for those obligations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory requirements for homeowner association violation notices.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 requirements regarding violation notices. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish the violation because he did not respond by certified mail within the 21-day statutory period, meaning the HOA was not triggered to fulfill its obligations under § 33-1242(C) and (D).

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Notice Violation, A.R.S. 33-1242, Statutory Construction, Homeowner Petition Dismissed
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz. 479, 483, 930 P.2d 993, 997(1997)
  • Canon School Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 177 Ariz. 526, 529, 869 P.2d 500, 503 (1994)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918009-REL Decision – 671673.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:23 (85.4 KB)

Rogelio A. Garcia vs. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-03-04
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rogelio A. Garcia Counsel —
Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition for rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the statutory details or the notice of the right to petition ADRE because the Petitioner failed to submit a written response by certified mail within 21 days of the violation notices.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the information listed in A.R.S. § 33-1242 (C) or the notice of right to petition in (D) because the Petitioner did not submit a written response by certified mail within twenty-one days, which is the triggering requirement for those obligations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory requirements for homeowner association violation notices.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 requirements regarding violation notices. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish the violation because he did not respond by certified mail within the 21-day statutory period, meaning the HOA was not triggered to fulfill its obligations under § 33-1242(C) and (D).

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Notice Violation, A.R.S. 33-1242, Statutory Construction, Homeowner Petition Dismissed
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz. 479, 483, 930 P.2d 993, 997(1997)
  • Canon School Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 177 Ariz. 526, 529, 869 P.2d 500, 503 (1994)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918009-REL Decision – 671673.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:06:57 (85.4 KB)

Michelle Ruffo vs. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-10-03
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michelle Ruffo Counsel —
Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1242, 33-1248, 33-1803(A), 33-1803(B), 33-1805; CC&Rs §§ 1.36, 1.38, 4.7, 2.8.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the governing documents or relevant statutes in assessing fines for unauthorized parking.

Why this result: Petitioner continually violated CC&R § 4.7 and failed to prove Respondent violated any CC&R or statute, particularly as A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply to disputes concerning the use of limited common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA violation of CC&Rs and Statutes by imposing parking fines

Petitioner challenged the HOA's decision to assess continuous fines against her account totaling $2,544.00 for repeatedly parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit 52, arguing the fines and enforcement lacked proper statutory process and violated CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and that the statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1242) concerning property condition notices did not apply to this dispute regarding limited common elements (parking spaces).

Orders: Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&R § 4.7
  • CC&R § 2.8.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: parking violation, fines, HOA enforcement, limited common elements, due process, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 12-349
  • CC&R § 4.7
  • CC&R § 2.8.3

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:52 (270.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818044-REL


Briefing Document: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, involving Petitioner Michelle Ruffo and Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association. The core of the dispute centers on a series of fines levied by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for repeatedly parking in condominium parking spaces not assigned to her unit.

The Petitioner argued that she had informal written permission from other residents to use their spaces, that the Association’s notices of violation were procedurally flawed, that she was the victim of retaliatory harassment, and that her own assigned space was frequently occupied by others. The Respondent maintained that its actions were in strict accordance with the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which unambiguously require owners to use only their assigned parking spaces and outline a formal process for reallocating them, a process the Petitioner did not follow.

The ALJ ultimately denied the petition, finding that Ms. Ruffo failed to meet her burden of proof. The decision concluded that the Association acted within its rights, that its enforcement actions were consistent with its governing documents, and that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements represented the very “evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” As of the hearing date, the outstanding balance of fines, interest, and fees on the Petitioner’s account totaled $2,544.00.

Case Background

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Representation / Key Details

Petitioner

Michelle Ruffo

Owner of unit 52, assigned parking space #131. Appeared on her own behalf.

Respondent

Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Assoc.

The condominium unit owners’ association. Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq. of Brown Olcott, PLLC.

Adjudicator

Diane Mihalsky

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Witnesses

Carol Lundberg

Testified for the Petitioner.

Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky & Gabino Trejo

Former and current property managers, respectively, who testified for the Respondent.

Core Dispute

The central issue is the Association’s imposition of fines against Ms. Ruffo for violating the community’s parking regulations. On or about April 17, 2018, Ms. Ruffo filed a petition alleging the Association violated its CC&Rs and several Arizona statutes by fining her for parking in spaces #38 and #40, which were not assigned to her unit #52. The Association denied any violation, asserting it was enforcing valid community rules.

Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict escalated over a period of approximately two years, marked by a series of notices, fines, and failed attempts at resolution.

• August 2, 2016: The Association sends a “Friendly Reminder” to Ms. Ruffo to cease parking in space #40 and use her assigned space, #131.

• August 5, 2016: A “Notice of Violation” is sent for the same issue, serving as a second warning.

• March 14, 2017: A “Final Non-Compliance Notice” is issued, noting violations in both space #40 and #38. The notice informs Ms. Ruffo of her right to a hearing with the Board of Directors if requested within 14 days.

• March 30, 2017: The first fine of $50.00 is assessed after Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle is again observed in space #38.

• April 17, 2017: Ms. Ruffo responds in writing, claiming she has permission to use the spaces and requests the fine be waived.

• April 27, 2017: The Association’s Board reviews and denies the waiver request. Ms. Ruffo was invited to address the Board but did not attend.

• June 6, 2017: A $200.00 fine is assessed for two observed violations in space #40.

• June 26, 2017: Another $200.00 fine is assessed for violations in spaces #40 and #38.

• July 11, 2017: The Association warns that access to community amenities (pool, fitness room) will be denied if fines remain unpaid. This action is later taken.

• August 31, 2017: A Board meeting is scheduled for Ms. Ruffo and her attorney, Mark F. Williman, to attend. Neither party attends, and they fail to provide advance notice. The Association incurs a $200 legal fee for its attorney’s attendance.

• September 25, 2017: Fines totaling $1,400.00 are assessed for multiple observed violations.

• September 27, 2017: The Association attempts to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. The attempt is aborted after she refuses to exit the vehicle and calls the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.

• October 4, 2017: The Association’s attorney informs Ms. Ruffo that another hearing will not be scheduled until she reimburses the Association for the $200 legal fee from the missed August 31 meeting.

• October 2017 – January 2018: A series of additional fines are assessed for ongoing violations, and Ms. Ruffo sends multiple letters requesting a hearing and protesting the fines and the $200 reimbursement requirement.

• April 17, 2018: Ms. Ruffo files the formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• September 18, 2018: The evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Michelle Ruffo)

Ms. Ruffo’s defense was multi-faceted, based on claims of permission, procedural errors by the Association, and alleged harassment.

• Claim of Permission: Ms. Ruffo testified that since 2005, she had been parking in spaces #38 and #40 with written permission. She claimed a 2006 agreement with the Morleys, then owners of unit #56, for space #40. She also submitted a 2018 email from Julie Ruiz, a tenant in unit #53, granting permission to use space #38.

• Allegations of Improper Notices: She argued the Association’s notices violated A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) because they did not always identify the person who observed the violation or provide photographic evidence.

• Allegations of Harassment and Retaliation: Through an attorney, Ms. Ruffo alleged she was being “unlawfully discriminated against and harassed in retaliation for her role related to allegations that HOA President Mitch Treese misappropriated HOA funds.” The ALJ noted that no evidence was submitted at the hearing to support this claim.

• Counter-Evidence: Ms. Ruffo submitted photographs dated from October 2016 to July 2017 showing other vehicles, including those of Associa maintenance and a landscaping contractor, parked in her assigned space #131.

• Dispute over Hearing Preconditions: She argued that the Association’s demand for a $200 reimbursement for its attorney’s fees as a condition for a new hearing was unlawful and not permitted under the CC&Rs.

Respondent’s Position (The Association)

The Association’s case rested on the explicit language of its governing documents and its adherence to established enforcement procedures.

• Primacy of the CC&Rs: The Association argued that its governing documents are unambiguous. Section 4.7 explicitly forbids owners from parking in any space other than the one assigned to their unit as a Limited Common Element.

• Formal Reallocation Process: Per Section 2.8.3, reallocating a Limited Common Element like a parking space requires a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved and submitted to the Board for approval. Ms. Ruffo never followed this procedure.

• Rejection of Informal Agreements: The property manager testified that such private agreements are not legally binding or enforceable by the Association and create confusion, as evidenced by complaints from subsequent owners and tenants who were unable to use their assigned spaces.

• Adherence to Enforcement Policy: The Association followed its documented Violation Enforcement Policy, starting with a friendly reminder and escalating to formal notices and fines for continued non-compliance.

• Opportunity to Be Heard: Ms. Ruffo was provided opportunities to address the Board on April 27, 2017, and August 31, 2017. She failed to attend either meeting, and her failure to provide notice for the latter caused the Association to incur unnecessary legal fees.

• Witness Testimony: The former property manager, Ms. Chapman, testified that she had personally witnessed all the charged violations.

Governing Documents and Statutes

The case hinged on the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs and relevant Arizona state law.

Key CC&R Provisions

Section

Provision

Relevance

Motor Vehicles: “no Owner, Lessee or Occupant may park any . . . motor vehicle . . . in any Parking Spaces other than the Parking Space assigned to the Unit as a Limited Common Element.”

The central rule that the Petitioner was found to have repeatedly violated.

§ 2.8.3

Reallocation of Limited Common Elements: A reallocation requires a formal, recorded amendment executed by the owners and submitted to the Board.

The official procedure for changing parking space assignments, which the Petitioner did not follow for her informal agreements.

§ 13.1

Enforcement: Grants the Association the right to impose monetary penalties, suspend an owner’s right to use facilities, and tow vehicles in violation of the rules, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Provides the legal authority within the governing documents for the Association’s actions (fines, suspension of amenity access, attempted tow).

§ 1.36

“Parking Space” Definition: Defines a parking space as a portion of the Limited Common Elements.

Legally classifies the disputed parking spaces, making them subject to the rules governing Limited Common Elements.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), which requires an association, upon written request from an owner, to provide details of an alleged violation, including the observer’s name and the date. The ALJ determined this statute was inapplicable to the dispute. The judge’s reasoning was that the statute applies specifically to notices regarding the “condition of the property owned by the unit owner” (i.e., her physical condo unit #52), not her use of Limited Common Elements like parking spaces, which she does not own.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision was a conclusive denial of the petition, siding entirely with the Association.

Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied because Petitioner has not established that Respondent violated the CC&Rs or any statute in assessing fines against her for her repeated violations of CC&R § 4.7 by parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit #52.”

Key Legal Conclusions

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving her claims by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so.

• Unambiguous Covenants: The CC&Rs regarding parking are unambiguous and must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. CC&R § 4.7 clearly requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.

• Invalidity of Informal Agreements: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements illustrated “the evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” These undocumented side deals create instability and conflict when properties are sold or new tenants arrive, undermining the security and order of the community’s parking plan.

• Respondent’s Proper Conduct: The Association was found to have followed its own enforcement policy and provided the Petitioner with opportunities to be heard.

• Attorney’s Fee Condition: While the CC&Rs do not explicitly authorize charging an owner for attorney’s fees as a precondition for a hearing, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(18) allows an association to “exercise any . . . powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation.” Furthermore, civil statutes often require a party to pay for fees they cause an opponent to incur unnecessarily.

• Futility of a Board Hearing: The ALJ concluded that, in light of the Petitioner’s arguments and her “continued violation of Respondent’s parking policy over nearly two years,” a hearing before the Association’s Board would not have changed her behavior or the outcome of the matter.

Financial Implications

The conflict resulted in significant financial penalties for the Petitioner. The fines were assessed on an escalating basis for continued violations.

• March 30, 2017: $50.00

• June 6, 2017: $200.00

• June 26, 2017: $200.00

• August 9, 2017: $200.00

• September 25, 2017: $1,400.00

• October 17, 2017: $100.00

• November 6, 2017: $100.00

As of the hearing on September 18, 2018, the total outstanding balance on Ms. Ruffo’s account, including interest and certified letter fees, was $2,544.00.