Tag Archives: CC&R

Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-13
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nicholas Thomas Counsel —
Respondent Tanglewood Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement, Pages 33-34, Clause Four, subsection a., b., and f.

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the two-issue Petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Tanglewood Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or Management Agreement. The HOA was declared the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Regarding the plumbing maintenance (Issue #1), the HOA demonstrated they took action but were legally constrained by contract limitations requiring Board approval/owner vote for costly repairs ($5,000 threshold). Regarding the failure to hire a property manager (Issue #2), the governing documents were vague, and the violation was not proven.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain Association standards of acceptable living standards and make proper repairs to plumbing in the properties.

Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging HOA failed to timely fix a major plumbing issue (Issue #1) that caused flooding/sink backup, making his unit uninhabitable and resulting in lost rent. The second issue (Issue #2) alleged the HOA failed to hire a property management company, which Petitioner claimed led to the untimely handling of Issue #1. The HOA responded that repairs were delayed due to financial constraints requiring a successful special assessment vote.

Orders: The Petition was denied, and the HOA was determined to be the prevailing party. Petitioner was ordered to bear his filing fees. OAH cannot award damages, such as lost rent reimbursement.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Page 2, Section A
  • Management Agreement, Pages 33-34, Clause Four, subsection a., b., and f.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Plumbing, CC&R, Self-Managed, Special Assessment, Filing Fee, Damages Denied
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Decision Documents

25F-H037-REL Decision – 1300705.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:18 (49.8 KB)

25F-H037-REL Decision – 1327762.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:18 (147.6 KB)

Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-07
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keith A. Shadden Counsel —
Respondent Las Brisas Community Association Counsel Emily Cooper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 5.10 & Article 5.12 of CC&Rs (Las Brisas Community Association)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing the HOA used incorrect CC&R sections for the violation concerning reflective material on garage door glass cutouts. The ALJ concluded that the plain meaning of "window" in CC&R Section 5.10 applies to any transparent opening and does not exclude garages.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by using incorrect sections for the violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts.

Key Issues & Findings

Allegation that Respondent is using incorrect CC&R section (5.10) to create violation for garage door glass cutouts which fall under section 5.12.

Petitioner alleged the HOA misapplied CC&R Section 5.10 (Windows) to enforce a violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts, asserting that Section 5.10 was not intended to cover garage doors as they are addressed under Section 5.12.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • 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)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Window Restriction, Garage Door, Reflective Material, Planned Communities Act, Burden of Proof, Violation Notice
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • 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)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Decision Documents

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1314210.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:25 (45.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316546.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:26 (59.6 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325514.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:26 (71.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325661.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:26 (88.3 KB)

Harry G. Turner v. MountainGate Home Owners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Harry G. Turner Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Harry G. Turner failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs by planning drainage construction in Tract H.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to reconcile conflicting designations of Tract H in the plat map (Preserved/Active Open Space vs. Drainage), thus failing to prove that the drainage ditch constituted a prohibited change of use.

Key Issues & Findings

Required membership vote for common area use change (Tract H drainage ditch)

Petitioner alleged the HOA (Respondent) violated CC&Rs Article 10 Section 4 by planning to dig a drainage ditch in Tract H, arguing this was a change of use requiring a 2/3rds membership vote. Respondent argued Tract H was already designated for drainage in the 'Conveyance and Dedication' portion of the plat map, negating the need for a vote.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Drainage, Common Area, Change of Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community, Plat Map
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1055488.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:34 (49.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1057334.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:34 (43.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1083773.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:34 (105.1 KB)

Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony Payson Counsel —
Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Counsel Sean K. Mohnihan

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 5.4

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's alleged failure to enforce nuisance provision (CC&R Section 5.4) regarding neighbor's outdoor television.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Section 5.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:22 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:22 (98.4 KB)

Carolyn Wefsenmoe v. Summit View Homeowner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H017-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carolyn Wefsenmoe Counsel —
Respondent Summit View Homeowner's Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3; Summit View Community Plat Notes

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the walls were built on the common area. Since HOA maintenance responsibility primarily attached to the common area, and the location of the walls relative to the lots remained unproven, the HOA was not found in violation of its maintenance obligations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls were located in a common area. No survey evidence was presented to determine whether the walls were on the individual lots (Owner responsibility) or the common area (HOA responsibility).

Key Issues & Findings

HOA failure to maintain perimeter walls and improper charging of homeowners for repairs.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA (SVHA) violated CC&R Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Community Plat Notes by failing to maintain the subdivision perimeter walls and charging homeowners for repairs, arguing the walls abutted and were part of the Common Area (NAOS), making maintenance the HOA's responsibility.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 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)
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Community Plat Notes

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Maintenance, Perimeter Walls, CC&R, Common Area, Burden of Proof, NAOS, Lot Line Dispute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Plat Notes

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018596.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (52.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018616.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (5.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1031301.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (53.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032541.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (258.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032542.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (723.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032543.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:27 (487.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032544.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:51:51 (3029.4 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032545.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:27 (81.9 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032546.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:51:53 (3401.3 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032547.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:51:54 (2346.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1035846.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:27 (114.5 KB)

Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

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

Cited:

  • 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

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Lighting, Architectural Review, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • 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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:38 (95.0 KB)

Lee & Kim Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-07-28
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lee & Kim Edwards Counsel Terry Foster, Esq.
Respondent Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1255, ruling that the statute was inapplicable due to the specific provisions in the Declaration regarding the 1/26 assessment calculation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the ALJ determined A.R.S. § 33-1255 was superseded by the Declaration, which mandated assessments based on the undivided 1/26 interest in the common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

Assessment calculation based on undivided interest in common areas

Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to change assessments from a historical square footage basis to a 1/26 interest calculation, arguing that this method violates A.R.S. § 33-1255 by charging for limited common elements (patios/parking).

Orders: The petition of Lee & Kim Edwards is dismissed; Respondent is deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255
  • Declaration Article I, Section 5
  • Declaration Article II, Section 5
  • Declaration Article II, Section 7
  • Declaration Article IV, Section 4
  • Declaration Article VI, Section 9

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, assessment, cc&r, statutory interpretation, common elements, limited common elements
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1255
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120028-REL-RHG Decision – 899379.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:39 (123.6 KB)

Lee & Kim Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-07-28
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lee & Kim Edwards Counsel Terry Foster, Esq.
Respondent Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1255, ruling that the statute was inapplicable due to the specific provisions in the Declaration regarding the 1/26 assessment calculation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the ALJ determined A.R.S. § 33-1255 was superseded by the Declaration, which mandated assessments based on the undivided 1/26 interest in the common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

Assessment calculation based on undivided interest in common areas

Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to change assessments from a historical square footage basis to a 1/26 interest calculation, arguing that this method violates A.R.S. § 33-1255 by charging for limited common elements (patios/parking).

Orders: The petition of Lee & Kim Edwards is dismissed; Respondent is deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255
  • Declaration Article I, Section 5
  • Declaration Article II, Section 5
  • Declaration Article II, Section 7
  • Declaration Article IV, Section 4
  • Declaration Article VI, Section 9

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, assessment, cc&r, statutory interpretation, common elements, limited common elements
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1255
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120028-REL Decision – 899379.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:38 (123.6 KB)

Don France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Don France Counsel —
Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association Counsel B. Austin Bailio

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 2.7

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.

Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020056-REL Decision – 823714.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:12:15 (96.1 KB)

Don France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Don France Counsel —
Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association Counsel B. Austin Bailio

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 2.7

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.

Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09