Tag Archives: Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Anne F. Segal vs Prince Court Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-05-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anne F. Segal Counsel —
Respondent Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817, and CC&Rs Article VII

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was legally permitted to amend its CC&Rs via written, notarized consent of the members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1), and that the actions taken did not violate the cited statutes or the governing documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; statutory requirements regarding voting (33-1812) and violation notices (33-1803) were inapplicable, and the process of using written consent and closed sessions for legal advice adhered to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1817 and 33-1804.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unlawful procedures in replacing CC&Rs

Petitioner alleged the Association violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes and CC&Rs Article VII by using unlawful procedures to replace the existing CC&Rs. Specific complaints included the Board directing members to sign a notarized agreement without permitting open discussion or dissent on specific proposed changes, arguing that a full vote was required. Respondent argued compliance with ARS § 33-1817 and CC&Rs Article VII, which permits amendment via written consent.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
  • CC&Rs Article VII
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R Amendment, Written Consent, Executive Session, Statutory Interpretation, Planned Community, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
  • CC&Rs Article VII
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802

Decision Documents

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269718.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:10 (53.7 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269742.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:10 (7.8 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274756.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:10 (54.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274775.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:10 (7.9 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1277633.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:11 (48.1 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1288621.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:11 (51.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1308520.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:11 (206.1 KB)

John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019032-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-08-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R Ashley Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. Counsel Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article III, Section 4

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's single-issue petition alleging that the HOA violated Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws by failing to ensure a quorum of Board members attended membership meetings was dismissed. The ALJ found that the Bylaw provision related to member quorum, not Board quorum, for member meetings, and the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: The Bylaws Article III, Section 4 is unambiguous and does not require a quorum of Board members to be present at a meeting of the members.

Key Issues & Findings

Quorum requirement for member meetings

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws by failing to have a quorum of Board members present at membership meetings. The ALJ concluded Article III, Section 4 is unambiguous and requires member quorum (1/10th of votes), not Board member quorum, for membership meetings.

Orders: Petitioner John R. Ashley’s petition is dismissed. Respondent deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 757 P.2d 105 (1988 App.)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Meeting of Members, Contract Interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 757 P.2d 105 (1988 App.)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019032-REL-RHG Decision – 814023.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:10:42 (99.2 KB)

John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019032-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-08-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R Ashley Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. Counsel Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article III, Section 4

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's single-issue petition alleging that the HOA violated Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws by failing to ensure a quorum of Board members attended membership meetings was dismissed. The ALJ found that the Bylaw provision related to member quorum, not Board quorum, for member meetings, and the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: The Bylaws Article III, Section 4 is unambiguous and does not require a quorum of Board members to be present at a meeting of the members.

Key Issues & Findings

Quorum requirement for member meetings

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws by failing to have a quorum of Board members present at membership meetings. The ALJ concluded Article III, Section 4 is unambiguous and requires member quorum (1/10th of votes), not Board member quorum, for membership meetings.

Orders: Petitioner John R. Ashley’s petition is dismissed. Respondent deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 757 P.2d 105 (1988 App.)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Meeting of Members, Contract Interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 757 P.2d 105 (1988 App.)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019032-REL-RHG Decision – 814023.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:45 (99.2 KB)