Tag Archives: common elements

The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995 v.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H049-REL, 24F-H055-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-01-21
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995 Counsel —
Respondent The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association Counsel Daryl Wilson

Alleged Violations

Declaration §§ 7.1, 7.12, 7.14
Declaration §§ 4.6.1, 4.6.2
Declaration §§ 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.13
A.R.S. § 33-1248(E), (F)
Declaration § 5.1

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding issues 2 (Puppy Potty) and 4 (Notice/Agenda). Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner a filing fee refund of $1,000 and a Civil Penalty of $500 for Issue 2. Respondent prevailed on Issues 1, 3, and 5.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on Issues 1, 3, and 5, often due to the Board's discretion being upheld (budget, maintenance pace) or failure to establish the circumstances constituted an actionable nuisance (news crew).

Key Issues & Findings

Inadequate budget and funding of reserves; improper withdrawal of reserve funds.

Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly borrowed reserves (~$390k) for operating expenses and failed to adopt an adequate budget for reserves. The Tribunal found the budget practices required only a reasonable estimate and that the reserve contributions had exceeded recommended levels as of July 2024.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 7.1
  • Declaration § 7.12
  • Declaration § 7.14

Installation of 'puppy potty' on common elements.

Petitioner sought removal of a puppy potty installed on the roof (a common element) arguing it violated rules prohibiting pet structures on common elements and constituted a nuisance. The Tribunal found the puppy potty was a structure for the care of pets on common elements, violating Section 4.6.2.

Orders: Respondent is directed to remove the puppy potty structure, and a Civil Penalty of $500 is imposed.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 4.6.1
  • Declaration § 4.6.2

Allowing news crew use of common area.

Petitioner contested the HOA allowing a news crew in the common pool area during the 2023 baseball post-season. The Tribunal found the Declaration permits invitees (guests) and failed to establish the presence of the news crew was unreasonable, offensive, or infringed upon owner easements.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 3.3.1
  • Declaration § 3.3.2
  • Declaration § 4.13

Failure to provide required notice and adequate information in agendas.

Petitioner alleged the HOA agendas failed to provide adequate information for meaningful resident comments, specifically concerning non-emergency topics like purchasing patio furniture. The Tribunal found evidence that the Board failed to include at least one non-emergency topic on the agenda.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1248 and its Community Documents going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)

Failure to maintain, repair, and replace Common Elements (structural damage/garage cracks).

Petitioner sought enforcement of maintenance obligations due to perceived slow pace (years of delay) in addressing structural cracks and water infiltration in the garage ceiling. The Tribunal acknowledged delays but noted the Board had engaged experts and was following their recommendations for monitoring and testing before the decision date.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Declaration § 5.1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condo, Reserves, Budget, Pets, Common Elements, Board Meetings, Notice, Structural Integrity
Additional Citations:

  • Declaration § 7.1
  • Declaration § 7.12
  • Declaration § 7.14
  • Declaration § 4.6.1
  • Declaration § 4.6.2
  • Declaration § 3.3.1
  • Declaration § 3.3.2
  • Declaration § 4.13
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)
  • Declaration § 5.1

Decision Documents

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1214040.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:15 (45.7 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1218977.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:15 (46.3 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1218981.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (5.9 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1219895.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (40.5 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1235253.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (47.1 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1264402.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:16 (277.9 KB)

Susannah Sabnekar v. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-26
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Susannah Sabnekar Counsel —
Respondent Four Peaks Vista Owners Association Counsel Maria McKee

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the statutes cited by the petitioner regarding conveyance of common elements (A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217) do not apply to the leasing of common elements, which was the action taken by the Respondent HOA.

Why this result: The statutes cited by the Petitioner apply to conveyances, but the disputed action was determined to be a lease, which is treated separately under Arizona's Condominium Act.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Board violated statute by conveying a portion of common elements without a vote from all homeowners.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217 by approving a lease agreement granting the Declarant (Four Peaks) the right to use a portion of the clubhouse as a management office, arguing this action constituted a conveyance requiring an 80% homeowner vote. The ALJ ruled that the statutes apply only to conveyances, not leases, and found no violation.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 33-1252
  • 33-1217
  • 33-1242
  • 33-1225

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium Act, Lease vs Conveyance, Common Elements, Declarant Rights, Motion to Dismiss
Additional Citations:

  • 33-1252
  • 33-1217
  • 33-1242
  • 33-1225
  • 33-1226

Decision Documents

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1097274.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:42 (52.7 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099296.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:43 (50.8 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099320.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:43 (48.2 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1106232.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:43 (118.8 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)

Keith D Smith v. Sierra Foothills Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120003-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-06-03
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keith D Smith Counsel —
Respondent Sierra Foothills Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 7.1(C)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition, alleging violations of CC&R section 7.1(C) and ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248, was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on both alleged violations.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence to support either the alleged open meeting law violation or the claim that the monument sign rule was unreasonable/discriminatory.

Key Issues & Findings

Board authority to adopt rules that allegedly unreasonably discriminate among Owners regarding monument sign usage

Petitioner alleged the Association's rule limiting the monument sign use to only Building B units was an unreasonable and discriminatory violation of CC&R 7.1(C) and 6.26(a). The ALJ found the limitation reasonable because Building A units have street frontage available for signage, while Building B units do not.

Orders: Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated CC&R section 7.1(C) because the limitation was reasonable. CC&R section 6.26 only applies to Article 6 and was not violated.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • CC&R section 7.1(C)
  • CC&R section 6.26(a)

Alleged open meeting law violation regarding adoption of the monument sign rule

Petitioner alleged the Board members communicated via email and reached their decision prior to the June 10, 2020 meeting, calling for a vote without discussion, violating open meeting laws. The ALJ found the claim unsubstantiated, noting that discussion did occur and no evidence (emails) was provided.

Orders: Petitioner did not prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248. The petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-115

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, signage dispute, common elements, rules and regulations, open meeting law, discrimination
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(1)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-115

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120003-REL-RHG Decision – 885949.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:50 (143.3 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)

John D Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-12-17
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John D Klemmer Counsel —
Respondent Caribbean Gardens Association Counsel Nicole D. Payne, Esq., Lydia A. Pierce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5 and 1.8; Article 3, Section 3.4; Article 4, Section 4.1; Article 8, Section 8.1; and, Article 12, Section 12.4

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent Association violated the cited CC&R provisions by refusing to manage the disputed area, which the ALJ determined was a limited common element.

Why this result: The Petitioner lost because the area in dispute was determined to be a 'limited common element' (a balcony serving Unit 207) under Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)), not a 'common area' the Association was required to manage under the referenced CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to manage, operate, maintain and administer common area

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated multiple CC&Rs by refusing to maintain an area between Unit 206 and Unit 207, which he claimed was a common area. The HOA argued the area was a limited common element. The ALJ concluded, relying on A.R.S. § 33-1212(A), that the disputed area was a limited common element (a balcony) allocated exclusively to Unit 207, thus Petitioner failed to establish a CC&R violation.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Petitioner bears his $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.5
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.6
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, common elements, limited common elements, balcony dispute, CC&R violation, A.R.S. 33-1212
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212
  • A.R.S. § 33-1218
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5, 1.8
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120009-REL Decision – 843358.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:04 (129.8 KB)

John D Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-12-17
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John D Klemmer Counsel —
Respondent Caribbean Gardens Association Counsel Nicole D. Payne, Esq., Lydia A. Pierce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5 and 1.8; Article 3, Section 3.4; Article 4, Section 4.1; Article 8, Section 8.1; and, Article 12, Section 12.4

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent Association violated the cited CC&R provisions by refusing to manage the disputed area, which the ALJ determined was a limited common element.

Why this result: The Petitioner lost because the area in dispute was determined to be a 'limited common element' (a balcony serving Unit 207) under Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)), not a 'common area' the Association was required to manage under the referenced CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to manage, operate, maintain and administer common area

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated multiple CC&Rs by refusing to maintain an area between Unit 206 and Unit 207, which he claimed was a common area. The HOA argued the area was a limited common element. The ALJ concluded, relying on A.R.S. § 33-1212(A), that the disputed area was a limited common element (a balcony) allocated exclusively to Unit 207, thus Petitioner failed to establish a CC&R violation.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Petitioner bears his $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.5
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.6
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, common elements, limited common elements, balcony dispute, CC&R violation, A.R.S. 33-1212
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212
  • A.R.S. § 33-1218
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5, 1.8
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Ronna Biesecker, v. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-06-25
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ronna Biesecker Counsel —
Respondent 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1247 and CC&Rs § 10(c)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs or Arizona statutes; therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as evidence suggested the water leak was caused by the sliding glass door of the unit above, not a flaw in the common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain all Common Elements (Water Leak Dispute)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent HOA failed to maintain Common Elements, leading to water leaks in her unit. Respondent denied the violation, asserting the leak originated from the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or track assemblies, which are the responsibility of that unit owner.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1247
  • CC&Rs § 10(c)
  • Article II.E, Section 1 of the Bylaws
  • Article C of the CC&Rs

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, maintenance dispute, common elements, water damage, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1247
  • CC&Rs § 10(c)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • 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
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020050-REL Decision – 802352.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:11:40 (103.2 KB)

Ronna Biesecker, v. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-06-25
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ronna Biesecker Counsel —
Respondent 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1247 and CC&Rs § 10(c)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs or Arizona statutes; therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as evidence suggested the water leak was caused by the sliding glass door of the unit above, not a flaw in the common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain all Common Elements (Water Leak Dispute)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent HOA failed to maintain Common Elements, leading to water leaks in her unit. Respondent denied the violation, asserting the leak originated from the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or track assemblies, which are the responsibility of that unit owner.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1247
  • CC&Rs § 10(c)
  • Article II.E, Section 1 of the Bylaws
  • Article C of the CC&Rs

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, maintenance dispute, common elements, water damage, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1247
  • CC&Rs § 10(c)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • 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
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020050-REL Decision – 802352.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:05 (103.2 KB)