Tag Archives: CC&R Violation

John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust vs Tonto Forest

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-06-08
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R 5.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s single-issue petition because the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the Architectural Committee (ARC) to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was awarded.

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural Committee Composition Requirement

Petitioner alleged violation of CC&R Article 5.3, which mandates the Architectural Committee (ARC) shall consist of three regular members, because the HOA only had two members on the ARC as of the petition date (February 5, 2025). The Tribunal found the HOA failed to appoint a third member to the ARC until March 17, 2025, granting the petition.

Orders: Petition granted; Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was awarded.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R 5.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Committee, ARC, CC&R Violation, Board Appointment, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Civil Penalty Denied
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R 5.3

Decision Documents

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1294268.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:14 (45.3 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1295556.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:15 (40.0 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1314961.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:15 (144.4 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1323845.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:15 (44.0 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1323922.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:15 (7.7 KB)

Taylor Kidd vs Heritage Village III Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-23
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer Counsel Patrick T. Nackley
Respondent Heritage Village III Homeowners Association Counsel Tessa Knueppel and Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4 and Heritage Village III HO CC&R Article VII, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Association violated its own CC&Rs (Article VII, Section 1) by failing to incorporate and follow Article III, Section 4 of the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs, which required a two-thirds vote of voting owners for a special assessment for capital improvements. Both petitions were granted, and the Association was ordered to refund the total filing fees of $1,000.00.

Why this result: Respondent failed to take the required vote regarding the special assessment for the Landscape Improvement Project, in violation of the controlling CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs by approving a Landscape Improvement Project and potential special assessment for a capital improvement without the required 2/3 membership vote.

The Association violated its CC&Rs by failing to follow the McCormick Ranch CC&R provision requiring the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by Voting Owners for a Special Assessment intended for construction, reconstruction, repair, or replacement of a capital improvement (the Landscape Improvement Project).

Orders: The petitions were granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse both Petitioners' filing fees pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4
  • Association CC&R Article VII, Section 1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Special Assessment, Capital Improvement, Membership Vote, CC&R Violation, Consolidation, Master Association
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.7
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

Decision Documents

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182719.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (62.8 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182767.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (13.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182769.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (50.0 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1203525.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (49.3 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1215299.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (123.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1226570.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (39.7 KB)

Aaron Solen & Anh Jung v. Power Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-07-05
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Aaron Solen and Anh Jung Counsel —
Respondent Power Ranch Community Association Counsel Charles H. Oldham

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §33-1803(B) and Article 5.2.4 of the Association’s by-laws

Outcome Summary

The tribunal granted the petition, finding the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B) and CC&R section 5.2.3 by failing to provide Petitioners an opportunity to be heard before imposing monetary penalties. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the tribunal denied all other requests for relief, including the reimbursement of fines, imposition of civil penalties, and forced approval of the modification, citing lack of statutory authority.

Why this result: The tribunal lacks statutory authority to erase fines imposed, force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s, or force the Association to accept the planters without Petitioners going through the proper Design Review Committee processes.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner was issued fines as a result of a Design Review Committee decision and petitioner was not provided an opportunity to appeal to or be heard by the board of directors as required by A.R.S. §33-1803(B) and Article 5, specifically Article 5.2.4 of the Association’s by-laws.

Petitioners were fined for an unapproved modification (planter) without being granted a proper opportunity to be heard by the Board, as required by statute and bylaws, leading to a violation finding against the Association. The May 2023 meeting did not include the hearing, and the June 2023 Executive Session was not deemed a proper 'hearing' due to confusion over the closed session terminology.

Orders: The petition alleging violation of hearing rights was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A). Requests for reimbursement of fines incurred ($400.00), approval of the planters, imposition of a civil penalty, and rewriting CC&R’s procedures were denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
  • Article 5.2.4
  • CC&R Section 5.2.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: DRC denial, hearing rights, monetary penalty, unapproved modification, executive session, CC&R violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
  • Article 5.2.4
  • CC&R Section 5.2.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Decision Documents

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:49 (42.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:50 (40.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:50 (37.4 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:50 (146.0 KB)

Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v. Sycamore Springs

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-01
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel Edith I. Rudder & Eden G. Cohen

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(B) & CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section II(O)
CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section III(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioners prevailed on both filed issues: the Respondent's conditional approval of the flagpole violated CC&Rs and statute, and the Violation Notice regarding the building envelope was improper as Petitioners were found to be in compliance (17,451 sq ft vs. 22,000 sq ft maximum). Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000 filing fee. Request for civil penalties was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Conditional approval of portable flagpole

Respondent conditionally approved Petitioners' DMR for a portable flagpole, but the conditions placed (limiting height, restricting mobility, and requiring placement on the side of the house) were outside the authority granted by the CC&Rs and violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808, which protects the display of the American flag in front or back yards. Petitioner sustained burden of proof.

Orders: Respondent must abide by the statute; civil penalty denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(B)
  • CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section II(O)

Violation Notice regarding Building Envelope compliance

Respondent sent a Violation Notice claiming Petitioners' building envelope was 38,000 square feet, exceeding the 22,000 square foot maximum limit defined in DG § III(A). The evidence established Petitioners' actual building envelope was 17,451 square feet, based on a superior 'boots on the ground' survey, proving no violation occurred. Petitioner sustained burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioners' building envelope did not violate the CC&Rs maximum limit; civil penalty denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section III(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner dispute, flagpole, building envelope, selective enforcement allegation, CC&R violation, statute violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Decision Documents

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1117050.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:13 (47.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1121577.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:13 (52.0 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1122554.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:13 (46.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128513.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:13 (40.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128831.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:14 (149.8 KB)

Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H001-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kristeen L. Herron Counsel —
Respondent The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 4.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&Rs Article 4.4. Petitioner's preference for warmer water did not establish discrimination or a rule violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent) is in violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 for “turning off the lap pool heater … [f]or approximately one month” which Petitioner further alleges constitutes discrimination against senior residents.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by turning off the lap pool heater around mid-April 2023, making the temperature too cold for her use and constituting discrimination against senior residents who rely on the pool for exercise. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove a violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 or age-based discrimination.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article 4.4
  • The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7(e)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Pool Heating, Discrimination Claim, Common Area Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-106
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 4.4
  • CC&Rs 8.2(c)(12)
  • The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Decision Documents

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1089588.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:33 (52.0 KB)

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1102316.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:33 (136.7 KB)

Megan E Gardner v. Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H061-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Megan E Gardner Counsel —
Respondent Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel Kyle A. von Johnson and Edith I. Rudder

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G by failing to provide 30 days' notice prior to the 2023 assessment increase. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide 30-day notice for 2023 dues increase

The HOA increased annual dues from $200.00 to $240.00 effective 1/1/2023 due to a financial crisis caused by embezzlement, but failed to provide the required 30-day written notice as mandated by the CC&Rs. Although the increase was later refunded, the ALJ affirmed the petition finding the HOA failed to comply with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent is ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dues Increase, Notice Violation, CC&R Violation, Embezzlement, Filing Fee Refund, Assessment Timing
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Decision Documents

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1077230.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:21 (41.5 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095389.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:21 (44.3 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095762.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:21 (6.7 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1102356.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:21 (110.9 KB)

Richard K. Morris v. The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-07
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard K. Morris Counsel —
Respondent The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's claim that the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 9.2 by forcing the removal of a previously approved security light. The HOA was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the Petitioner's request for a civil penalty was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Respondent required permanent removal of pre-approved security light in violation of CC&Rs Section 9.2.

Petitioner had Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval from 2010 to install a security light on the shed fascia (a common area). Respondent HOA later required its removal, arguing their fiduciary duty and a new roofing warranty (2023) voided the prior approval. The ALJ found the HOA failed to perform due diligence regarding the pre-existing ARC approval before contracting the new work and violated CC&Rs Section 9.2, which allows rebuilding in accordance with previously approved plans.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs and reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: ARC Approval, CC&R Violation, Fiduciary Duty, Homeowner Victory, Warranty Voidance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1073539.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:01 (51.9 KB)

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1080973.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:01 (110.3 KB)

Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. v. Randall & Gisela White

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H042-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $100.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Counsel Michael Shupe, Esq.
Respondent Randall & Gisela White Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 3(j)

Outcome Summary

The HOA's petition was granted. Respondents were found to have violated CC&Rs Section 3(j) by installing tile without approval and were ordered to comply with the CC&Rs, reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $100 civil penalty.

Why this result: Respondents admitted to the alleged conduct and failed to establish a sufficient affirmative defense (incomplete CC&Rs) against the violation, as the recorded CC&Rs provided constructive notice of all provisions. Respondents' conduct during testimony was also considered a factor in aggravation.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized exterior modification (tile installation)

Respondents permanently installed tile on their front porch entryway without obtaining prior written approval. The ALJ rejected the Respondents' defense regarding missing CC&R pages, noting the HOA sustained its burden of proving a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Orders: Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs Section 3(j), reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee, and pay a $100.00 civil penalty to the Department.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $100.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
  • Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R violation, Architectural Review Committee (ALC), exterior modification, tile installation, constructive notice, affirmative defense, HOA maintenance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • 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.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
  • Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
  • Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1048063.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:27 (55.7 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1055060.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:27 (219.4 KB)

Dennis Anderson v. Tara Condominiums Association

Posted on by

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)

Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221009-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-04-25
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sam & Pipper O' Shaughnessy Stangl Counsel —
Respondent Sabino Vista Townhouse Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 6

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Respondent violated Article VI of the CC&Rs by failing to maintain the natural desert area within the Common Area up to the exterior building lines. The CC&Rs mandate the Association maintain and remove all rubbish within its property up to the exterior building lines, and the Board lacked authority to designate this area as unmaintained natural desert without amending the CC&Rs. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and the filing fee was refunded.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Maintain Common Area

Petitioners alleged Respondent HOA violated Article 6 of the CC&Rs by failing to maintain the common area, specifically the unmaintained natural desert area (approx. two acres) located behind the townhome units, up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures.

Orders: Respondent is deemed the non-prevailing party. Respondent must pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of Article VI (6) of the CC&Rs going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

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.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)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance, CC&R violation, Common Area, Maintenance scope, Filing fee refund, Administrative Law Judge Decision, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • 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.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – 959583.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:07 (49.7 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – 964651.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:07 (18.7 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – 964655.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:07 (99.7 KB)