Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918038-REL
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918038-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core conflict centered on Mr. Stoltenberg’s claim that he should pay lower HOA assessments because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards requiring more costly maintenance by the HOA.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately denied the petition. The decision rested on an unambiguous interpretation of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Judge found that the CC&Rs explicitly obligate the HOA to maintain landscaping on all individual lots and, crucially, require assessments to be uniform for all members to cover these “common expenses.” The petitioner’s argument for a reduced assessment was unsupported by any provision in the governing documents. Furthermore, evidence showed that Mr. Stoltenberg had actively refused the HOA access to his property to install a community irrigation system and to perform the very landscaping maintenance that is a central component of the assessments.
Case Overview
• Case Number: 19F-H1918038-REL
• Parties Involved:
◦ Petitioner: Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Rancho Del Oro.
◦ Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA).
• Hearing Date: March 19, 2019
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge
• Core Allegation: On December 29, 2018, the Petitioner filed a petition alleging the HOA violated multiple sections of its CC&Rs (§§ 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 14.2) by levying the same assessment fees on his property as on neighboring properties with grass lawns.
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Michael Stoltenberg)
The Petitioner’s case was built on the argument of fairness, contending that his assessment should be lower because his property does not utilize the HOA’s most expensive landscaping services.
• Primary Argument: It is inequitable for the HOA to charge him the same amount as neighbors with grass yards, given that his front yard is rock and does not receive the same level of maintenance.
• Financial Evidence: The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the HOA spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which constituted 39% of its total budget.
• Refusal of Services: The Petitioner acknowledged that he refused to allow the HOA access to his property for two key purposes:
1. To install irrigation pipes connecting his lot to a new community well.
2. To perform any landscape maintenance on his front yard.
• Justification for Refusal: The Petitioner accused the HOA of previously killing his trees during maintenance activities and stated that he now undertakes all maintenance of his own yard.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Rancho Del Oro HOA)
The HOA’s defense was grounded in its adherence to the plain language of its governing documents, arguing that its actions were not only permissible but mandated by the CC&Rs.
• Primary Argument: The HOA is legally bound by its CC&Rs to levy uniform assessments on all members and is simultaneously obligated to maintain the landscaping on every individual lot.
• Key Testimony (Diana Crites, Property Manager):
◦ CC&R § 5.1(a) explicitly requires the HOA to maintain the yards of its members.
◦ CC&R § 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly, without regard to the type of landscaping they have chosen or whether they permit the HOA to perform its maintenance duties.
◦ The Petitioner’s property is one of eight constructed by a different developer, who did not originally install grass or an irrigation system.
◦ The HOA has since drilled a community well to address water costs and has offered to remove rock and install grass for these properties, an offer the Petitioner could accept.
• Supporting Evidence (Letter from Dawn Simpson, former bookkeeper):
◦ A 2013 HOA project was initiated to install a community well for landscaping and to connect all homes, including the Petitioner’s.
◦ The letter details an incident where the Petitioner “became very heated with [the] contractor” and “declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose.”
◦ This action directly halted all construction to connect his property to the irrigation system and ceased all landscaping services provided by the HOA.
Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)
The judge’s decision centered on the clear, unambiguous language of specific articles within the CC&Rs. The petitioner failed to identify any language that would permit or require a non-uniform assessment.
CC&R Section
Key Language
Implication & Ruling
Article IV, Section 4.1
Assessments “shall be used for the… common benefit… of the Owners” and “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”
This establishes the principle of uniform, shared liability for common expenses, regardless of an individual owner’s specific use of a particular service.
Article V, Section 5.1(a)
“The Association shall maintain… landscaping… It shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.”
This article imposes a direct obligation on the HOA to maintain all members’ landscaping, not merely an optional service.
Legal Conclusions and Final Order
• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg, held the burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA had violated its CC&Rs.
• Interpretation of Covenants: In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. The judge found the CC&Rs to be unambiguous, requiring a holistic interpretation. The documents clearly mandate that the HOA must maintain all yards and must assess all members equally to fund that maintenance.
• Final Ruling: The Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. He failed to point to any provision within the CC&Rs that “allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard.”
• Order: The petition was denied. The HOA’s practice of charging uniform assessments was upheld as compliant with its governing documents.
