Dennis Anderson v. Tara Condominiums Association

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller Counsel
Respondent Tara Condominiums Association Counsel

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 11

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 11. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners themselves violated Section 11 by constructing the shed without prior written approval.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&R Section 11; the construction of the shed occurred prior to seeking or obtaining architectural approval, violating Section 11.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unfair, arbitrary, and capricious rejection of Architectural Change Form based on a non-existent rule (shed must not be higher than patio wall).

Petitioners claimed the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 11 by arbitrarily denying their request to construct a shed based on an unwritten rule regarding shed height (must be 3 inches below the wall). Petitioners acknowledged they constructed the shed prior to obtaining approval.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221
  • CC&Rs Section 11

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Change, CC&R Violation, Prior Approval, Shed
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221
  • CC&Rs Section 11

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 986010.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (48.4 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991586.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (114.3 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991600.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (6.5 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 996350.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (47.3 KB)

Will Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Will Schreiber Counsel Aaron M. Green
Respondent Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 12.3; Design Guidelines Sections HH & E

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated its community documents when denying retroactive approval for the glass view fence, and found the HOA's denial to be reasonable.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval to change his existing fence pursuant to the Design Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA denial of retroactive glass view fence approval

Petitioner installed a glass viewing fence without prior approval and subsequently sought retroactive approval, which the HOA denied. Petitioner argued the denial was unreasonable. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to follow proper procedures to seek approval for the fence change and failed to show the HOA violated its governing documents, finding the HOA's denial reasonable.

Orders: Petitioner Will Schreiber's Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 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.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • CC&R Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH
  • Design Guidelines Section E
  • Design Guidelines Section GG

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, View Fence, Architectural Change, Retroactive Approval, Design Guidelines, CC&Rs
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.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • CC&R Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH
  • Design Guidelines Section E
  • Design Guidelines Section GG

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 769789.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:09:54 (42.2 KB)

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 775433.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:09:55 (123.4 KB)

Will Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Will Schreiber Counsel Aaron M. Green
Respondent Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 12.3; Design Guidelines Sections HH & E

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated its community documents when denying retroactive approval for the glass view fence, and found the HOA's denial to be reasonable.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval to change his existing fence pursuant to the Design Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA denial of retroactive glass view fence approval

Petitioner installed a glass viewing fence without prior approval and subsequently sought retroactive approval, which the HOA denied. Petitioner argued the denial was unreasonable. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to follow proper procedures to seek approval for the fence change and failed to show the HOA violated its governing documents, finding the HOA's denial reasonable.

Orders: Petitioner Will Schreiber's Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 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.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • CC&R Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH
  • Design Guidelines Section E
  • Design Guidelines Section GG

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, View Fence, Architectural Change, Retroactive Approval, Design Guidelines, CC&Rs
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.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • CC&R Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH
  • Design Guidelines Section E
  • Design Guidelines Section GG

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 769789.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:30 (42.2 KB)

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 775433.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:30 (123.4 KB)