Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919059-REL-RHG
Briefing: Administrative Law Judge Decision in Bartle v. Saguaro West Owner’s Association
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919059-REL-RHG, where Petitioner Mary J. Bartle’s complaint against the Saguaro West Owner’s Association was dismissed. The decision, issued on January 30, 2020, followed a rehearing held on January 14, 2020.
The core of the dispute was a financial transaction involving the withdrawal of $49,000.50 from the Association’s operating account on October 22, 2018, and the redeposit of the same amount on November 30, 2018. The Petitioner alleged this action violated the Association’s bylaws. However, the case was specifically limited to whether the transaction violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d), which details the duties of the Association’s Treasurer.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately concluded that while the transaction was questionable—stating there was “evidence to suggest that the transactions may have been in violation of the law”—the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof. Specifically, Ms. Bartle did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the transaction constituted a violation of any of the specific duties of the treasurer as enumerated in the cited bylaw. The petition was therefore dismissed, and the Respondent Association was deemed the prevailing party.
——————————————————————————–
1. Case Overview
Case Name
Mary J. Bartle, Petitioner, vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association, Respondent
Case Number
19F-H1919059-REL-RHG
Jurisdiction
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona
Administrative Law Judge
Thomas Shedden
Decision Date
January 30, 2020
Petitioner
Mary J. Bartle (representing herself)
Respondent
Saguaro West Owner’s Association (represented by Nicole Payne, Esq.)
2. The Central Dispute and Procedural History
The matter originated from a petition filed by Ms. Bartle on April 22, 2019, with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central issue concerned a pair of financial transactions:
• October 22, 2018: A withdrawal of $49,000.50 from the Association’s operating account.
• November 30, 2018: A redeposit of the same amount, $49,000.50.
During the initial hearing on August 29, 2019, the scope of Ms. Bartle’s petition was formally limited to the single issue of whether these transactions violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). Following that hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on September 18, 2019, dismissing the petition. The ALJ found that Ms. Bartle had not proven a violation of that specific bylaw section.
Ms. Bartle subsequently filed a Rehearing Request on October 23, 2019, asserting an error in the admission of evidence. The Department of Real Estate granted the request, and a rehearing was convened on January 14, 2020. At the rehearing, Ms. Bartle testified that laws must have been violated because the Association’s members were not provided with any notice of these transactions. The Respondent was represented by counsel but presented no witnesses.
3. Key Legal Findings and Conclusions
The ALJ’s final decision rested on a narrow interpretation of the case’s scope and the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof.
The case was strictly confined to the duties of the treasurer as outlined in Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). According to the decision, this section requires the Treasurer to:
• Receive and deposit all monies into the Association’s bank accounts.
• Disburse funds as directed by a resolution of the Board of Directors.
• Properly prepare and sign checks for co-signing.
• Keep proper books of account.
• Cause an annual audit of the Association’s books to be made by a public accountant.
• Prepare an annual budget for the membership meeting.
• Cause all Federal and State reports to be prepared.
• Prepare all monthly statements of finance for the Board of Directors.
The decision explicitly states that Ms. Bartle bore the burden of proof and that the standard was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The ALJ cited Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition:
“The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
The final decision reiterates the conclusion from the original hearing. While the judge acknowledged the suspicious nature of the transactions, this was not sufficient to prove a violation of the specific bylaw in question.
The key conclusion of law states:
“Although there is evidence in the record to suggest that the withdrawal and redeposit of the $49,000.50 may have been in violation of the law or otherwise improper, it has not been shown that these transactions violated any of the treasurer’s duties as set out in section 8(d).”
Ultimately, Ms. Bartle failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the withdrawal and redeposit of funds breached any of the enumerated duties of the Treasurer. Her argument at the rehearing regarding the lack of notice to members did not connect directly to the treasurer’s responsibilities as defined in the controlling bylaw section.
4. Final Order and Appeal Process
• Order: The petition filed by Mary J. Bartle was ordered to be dismissed.
• Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Saguaro West Owner’s Association, was deemed the prevailing party.
• Appeal: The decision is binding on the parties as it resulted from a rehearing. Any party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five (35) days from the date the order was served.
