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

Posted on January 21, 2025 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1214040.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:23 (45.7 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1218977.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:23 (46.3 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1218981.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:23 (5.9 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1219895.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:23 (40.5 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1235253.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:23 (47.1 KB)

24F-H049-REL Decision – 1264402.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:24 (277.9 KB)

Briefing Doc – 24F-H049-REL

Briefing on Hulbert Family Trust v. The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key arguments, evidence, and conclusions from the administrative hearing concerning the consolidated matters The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust v. The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association (Case Nos. 24F-H049-REL & 24F-H055-REL). The hearing, adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Samuel Fox, addressed five distinct complaints filed by Petitioner Donna Hulbert against the Respondent Homeowners Association (HOA) Board of Directors.

The core of the dispute revolved around the Petitioner’s allegations that the HOA Board acted in violation of the Condominium Declaration and Arizona state law regarding its financial management, use of common areas, meeting procedures, and timeliness of structural repairs. The Respondent contended that its actions fell within the Board’s discretionary authority and were reasonable under the circumstances.

The ALJ’s final decision delivered a split verdict. The Petitioner prevailed on two claims: the installation of a “puppy potty” on the roof was found to be a clear violation of the Declaration’s rules on pets in common areas, and the Board’s meeting agendas were found to be statutorily deficient. The Respondent prevailed on three claims: the ALJ found no violation in the Board’s budget and reserve management, its decision to allow a news crew on common property, or the pace of its response to structural damage from a pool leak. The final order required the HOA to pay a portion of the Petitioner’s filing fees, levied a civil penalty for the “puppy potty” violation, and directed the Board to comply with state law regarding meeting notices.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural History and Key Parties

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust, represented by Donna Hulbert, owner of Unit 1302.

◦ Respondent: The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association, represented by Attorney Daryl Wilson.

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Case Numbers: 24F-H049-REL and 24F-H055-REL, consolidated on August 21, 2024, under 24F-H049-REL.

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox.

• Hearing Dates: August 28, 2024, and October 24, 2024.

• Key Witnesses:

◦ For Petitioner: Donna Hulbert; Jay Parry Erb (former Board Treasurer).

◦ For Respondent: Greg Axelrod (current Board President); Zackary Beckham (former Board President).

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Complaints and Adjudication

Complaint 1: Budget and Reserve Funding

Allegation: The HOA violated Declaration Sections 7.1, 7.12, and 7.14 by borrowing from reserves to fund operating expenses and failing to create a budget that adequately funded reserves for future expenses.

Petitioner’s Arguments & Evidence

Respondent’s Arguments & Evidence

ALJ’s Findings & Conclusion

The HOA’s budget is structurally inadequate, evidenced by a history of borrowing from reserves (~$400,000 in 2023) to cover operating shortfalls.

The Board has sole discretion over the budget. The budgets for 2023 and 2024 met operating expenses and did not have a shortfall.

No Violation Found.

The 2024 budget was improperly based on the overrun 2023 budget figures plus a 7.5% increase, rather than on actual historical expenses.

The Association has met its budgeted contributions to the reserve fund and is not currently borrowing from reserves to pay operating expenses.

The Declaration requires a reasonable estimate for the budget, not a perfect one. It does not mandate that the budget reflect the reserve study or past unexpected expenses.

Operating expenses (e.g., pool leak testing, security fob installation) are being misclassified as reserve expenses to conceal operating deficits.

The Board relies on the professional guidance of its management company, First Service Residential, and its accountants for financial reporting and budget creation.

As of July 2024, the budget had a surplus, and monthly reserve contributions (45,365avg.)exceededthereservestudy′srecommendation(45,000).

The operating account is funded at 0.3 times monthly expenses, far below the management company’s recommendation of 3 times.

The Board fulfilled its obligation to adopt a budget containing an estimate of required funds. The Petitioner failed to prove otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.

Outcome: Respondent deemed the prevailing party on this issue.

The HOA has a history of delaying payments to vendors (e.g., an RKS Plumbing invoice was paid seven months late), indicating cash flow issues.

Witness Jay Erb (former Treasurer): Testified to discovering a ~$392,000 deficit in the operating fund being covered by reserves upon joining the Board. He stated that these transfers lacked the two board member signatures required by Declaration Section 7.14.1 for reserve withdrawals.

Complaint 2: The “Puppy Potty”

Allegation: The HOA installed a “puppy potty” on the roof, a common element, in violation of Declaration Sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.2, constituting a nuisance.

Petitioner’s Arguments & Evidence

Respondent’s Arguments & Evidence

ALJ’s Findings & Conclusion

Declaration Section 4.6.2 constitutes an “absolute prohibition” against pets on common elements, except for ingress and egress through the service elevator.

Board President Greg Axelrod testified the installation was not an official Board action but was proposed by the general manager.

Violation Found.

The roof is defined as a “Common Element” under Declaration Section 1.12 (“all portions of the Condominium other than the Units”).

Mr. Axelrod argued the roof was not a common element in practice, as the door leading to it had always been locked and the area was unused by residents.

The roof area is part of the Common Elements by the Declaration’s explicit definition, regardless of its previous accessibility.

The “puppy potty” is a “structure for the care…of any Permitted Pet” which is explicitly forbidden on any portion of the Common Elements.

The potty was installed as an amenity for residents, particularly for the safety of women walking their dogs late at night in downtown Phoenix. It cost only 600−700.

The puppy potty is a structure for the care of pets, which is prohibited on Common Elements under Section 4.6.2.

The installation creates an odor and presents a safety hazard, as it requires an industrial roof area with unenclosed openings to be accessible.

The area is cleaned by maintenance staff at least three times per week. Most residents appreciate the amenity.

The installation of the puppy potty violates Section 4.6.2 of the Declaration.

The decision was made unilaterally by the Board President without a formal board meeting or vote.

Outcome: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party. A $500 civil penalty was levied against the Respondent.

Complaint 3: News Crew on Common Area

Allegation: The HOA allowed a news crew to use the common area during the 2023 baseball postseason, violating residents’ easement of enjoyment (Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2) and creating a nuisance (Section 4.13).

Petitioner’s Arguments & Evidence

Respondent’s Arguments & Evidence

ALJ’s Findings & Conclusion

The easement of enjoyment in common elements is for owners and their guests. The news crew members were “strangers.”

The news crews were on the property twice: for the Diamondbacks’ opening day and for the World Series.

No Violation Found.

The crew created a nuisance with bright lights shining into units and a drone camera. At times, the crew was unsupervised.

The crew was present during a larger HOA-hosted party on the fifth-floor pool deck and was confined to a specific, underutilized area within the party.

The Declaration allows for invitees, guests, and their agents (Section 13.12). The news crew was invited to the party.

The action violated residents’ right to quiet enjoyment. A single board member approved the crew’s presence without a formal board action or recorded easement.

Having the news crew on-site provided a benefit to the Association by giving positive public exposure to the building.

The evidence did not establish that the lights and noise were unreasonable under the circumstances of a large party occurring above a public block party. The Petitioner failed to prove the drone belonged to the news crew.

The crew’s presence did not fall under any exception in the Declaration.

The crew did not displace any resident from using the area. No easement was conveyed or encumbered.

The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate the news crew was a nuisance or that any resident was deprived of their easement of enjoyment.

Outcome: Respondent deemed the prevailing party on this issue.

Complaint 4: Meeting Notices and Agendas

Allegation: The HOA fails to provide required notice for all quorum meetings and provides agendas with inadequate information, violating A.R.S. § 33-1248 (E) and (F).

Petitioner’s Arguments & Evidence

Respondent’s Arguments & Evidence

ALJ’s Findings & Conclusion

A.R.S. § 33-1248 requires open meetings and agendas with information “reasonably necessary to inform the unit owners of the matters to be discussed or decided.”

All topics the Board intends to discuss are included on the agendas, which are posted and emailed at least 48 hours in advance.

Violation Found.

Agendas are often vague, using terms like “Old Business” or “New Business,” which prevents homeowners from meaningfully preparing comments.

Board President Axelrod testified that if an urgent, non-emergency topic arises within 48 hours of a meeting, it may be added, but this has only happened once.

A.R.S. § 33-1248(F) reflects a state policy in favor of open meetings and reasonably informative agendas.

The Petitioner cited a May 29th meeting where a $33,000 expenditure for patio furniture was discussed and approved under a vague agenda item, without prior notice to homeowners.

Regarding executive sessions, Mr. Axelrod testified they are held only for permissible topics (legal, financial, employee matters) and are properly noticed.

The preponderance of evidence established that on at least one occasion, the Board failed to include a non-emergency topic on its agenda, leaving owners uninformed.

The Board holds executive sessions before open meetings without providing an agenda detailing the specific closed items being discussed.

Mr. Axelrod admitted that during his first one or two meetings as president, he may have discussed impermissible topics in executive session out of ignorance, but this was corrected.

Evidence also supported that on at least one occasion, the Board discussed inappropriate topics in an executive session.

Outcome: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Complaint 5: Structural Damage Repair

Allegation: The HOA violated its duty under Declaration Section 5.1 to “maintain, repair and replace all Common Elements” by failing to act expediently to repair structural damage from a pool leak.

Petitioner’s Arguments & Evidence

Respondent’s Arguments & Evidence

ALJ’s Findings & Conclusion

The HOA has demonstrated a history of slow response to a significant structural issue. Water leaks and cracks in the 4th-floor garage ceiling were noted as early as January 2020.

The Board has sole discretion over the “appropriate maintenance, repair, and replacement” of common elements.

No Violation Found.

Despite a March 2023 report (Rowley & Reynolds) and an April 2024 report (Gervasio) confirming ongoing damage and recommending destructive investigation, progress has been slow.

The Board has been following the recommendations of its hired experts. The first necessary step was locating the source of the leak, which was difficult and took time.

The Declaration requires the Board to maintain elements in “good condition and repair.” The Board’s discretion is the sole judge of what is appropriate.

The Petitioner believes the filing of the petition was the primary catalyst for the Board to finally take concrete action (destructive testing).

After the leak was fixed, the Board hired Gervasio to proceed with the next step, which was destructive testing.

The Board, if slowly, followed the recommendations of its experts.

The ongoing delay constitutes a failure of the Board’s duty to maintain the property.

The Board is actively addressing the issue. Mr. Axelrod testified that there was no indication of any immediate danger to the structure.

The Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the pace of the action is not sufficient to prove that the Board failed to comply with the requirements of the Declaration.

Outcome: Respondent deemed the prevailing party on this issue.

——————————————————————————–

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders on January 21, 2025:

1. Prevailing Parties: The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Issues 2 (Puppy Potty) and 4 (Meetings/Notice). The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issues 1 (Budget), 3 (News Crew), and 5 (Structural Damage).

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000 for the filing fee within 30 days.

3. Compliance Order: Respondent was directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1248 and its Community Documents going forward.

4. Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $500 was levied against the Respondent for the violation related to the “puppy potty” (Issue 2).

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Donna Hulbert (petitioner)
The Gregory M and Donna P Hulbert Family Trust dated May 25, 1995
Trustee and representative of Petitioner; also testified as a witness.
Jay Parry Erb (witness)
Former Board Treasurer (April 2023 – August 2023).
Debbie Goodwin (witness)
Prior board member and financial professional consulted by Mr. Erb.

Respondent Side

Daryl Wilson (HOA attorney)
Gordon Rees
Greg Axelrod (board member)
The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association
Current Board President as of hearing.
Zackary Beckham (board member)
The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association
Former Board President.
Christy Woodruff (board member)
The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association
Mr. Grodier (board member)
The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association
Dana Knight (board member)
The Summit at Copper Square Condominium Association
Newest board member.

Neutral Parties

Samuel Fox (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol (ALJ)
OAH
Signed continuance order.

Other Participants

Brad Palmer (property manager)
First Service Residential
Former General Manager.
Dan Harvey (property manager)
First Service Residential
General Manager.
Kimberly Greenland (property manager)
First Service Financial
Financial Controller.
Carla Chung (property manager)
First Service Financial
Senior VP of Cash Management and Lending.
Angelica Romero (property manager)
HOA Management
Assistant General Manager.
Ward Holland (witness)
Gervasio & Assoc., Inc. Consulting Engineers
Engineer/Architect who performed inspections.
Jack Gordon (witness)
Gervasio & Assoc., Inc. Consulting Engineers
Engineer who performed inspections.
Frank Derso (property manager)
HOA Management
Manager/Supervisor mentioned regarding easement claims.
Holly (property manager)
First Service Residential
Mid-level manager.
Hal (committee member)
Resident involved in budget committee.
Scott McCain (committee member)
Resident involved in budget committee.
Tony Carro (engineer)
Building engineer/staff.
Keith (engineer)
Building engineer/staff.

Susannah Sabnekar v. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association

Posted on October 26, 2023 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1097274.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:57 (52.7 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099296.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:00 (50.8 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099320.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:04 (48.2 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1106232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:09 (118.8 KB)

Briefing Doc – 24F-H006-REL

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H006-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of Susannah Sabnekar vs. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association”,
“decision_date”: “2023-10-26”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Susannah Sabnekar”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Homeowner”
},
{
“name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Maria McKee”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC”,
“notes”: “Council for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Chad P. Miesen”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC”,
“notes”: “Council for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Charlie Markle”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Council for the Association”
},
{
“name”: “Kathy Gower”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Four Peaks Vista Owners Association”,
“notes”: “Community manager”
},
{
“name”: “Shelley Kobat”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Four Peaks Vista Owners Association”,
“notes”: “Associate board president”
},
{
“name”: “Amy Watier”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Homeowner, current board member, and previous board member”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission list”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission list”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission list”
},
{
“name”: “labril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission list”
}
]
}

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Susannah Sabnekar (petitioner)
Homeowner
Amy Watier (witness)
Homeowner, current board member, and previous board member

Respondent Side

Maria McKee (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Council for Respondent
Chad P. Miesen (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Council for Respondent
Charlie Markle (HOA attorney)
Council for the Association
Kathy Gower (property manager)
Four Peaks Vista Owners Association
Community manager
Shelley Kobat (board member)
Four Peaks Vista Owners Association
Associate board president

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission list
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission list
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission list
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission list

Lee & Kim Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

Posted on July 28, 2021 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

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 2026-01-23T17:36:25 (123.6 KB)

21F-H2120028-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120028-REL/856603.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:31 (98.1 KB)

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG

Assessment Methodology Dispute: Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between homeowners Lee & Kim Edwards (Petitioners) and the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association (Respondent) concerning a change in the methodology for calculating homeowner assessments. The core of the conflict was the Association’s decision to shift from a historical practice of assessments based on unit square footage to a uniform rate where each of the 26 units pays an equal 1/26 share of the common expenses.

The dispute was adjudicated by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in two separate hearings. In both instances, the ALJ ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing the petitions filed by the Edwards.

Key Takeaways:

• Change in Methodology: The Association’s Board, acting on legal advice received in January 2020, concluded that its 40-year practice of using a square-footage-based assessment violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Board subsequently implemented a 1/26 equal-share assessment method after a majority of homeowners selected this option.

• Initial Ruling on “Uniform Rate”: In the first hearing in February 2021, the Petitioners argued that the historical square footage method was a “uniform rate” and that the Association had waived its right to change the long-standing practice. The ALJ rejected this, finding that the new 1/26 rate complied with the CC&Rs’ requirement for a “uniform rate” (Article VI, Section 9) and aligned with each unit’s specified 1/26 undivided interest in the common elements (Article VI, Section 4(d)).

• Rehearing Ruling on State Statute: The Petitioners were granted a rehearing in July 2021, where they argued that the 1/26 method violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1255 by improperly charging all owners for “limited common elements” like patios and parking spaces. The ALJ again ruled against the Petitioners, concluding that the state statute did not apply. The ruling was based on a key provision in the statute: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration.” The judge found that the Association’s Declaration did provide otherwise by defining patios and parking as general common elements and explicitly mandating that costs be shared based on each unit’s 1/26 interest.

• Final Outcome: The petition was definitively dismissed after the rehearing, making the ALJ’s order binding. The Association’s adoption of the 1/26 assessment rate was upheld as compliant with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Background of the Dispute

The legal conflict originated from a single-issue petition filed on November 20, 2020, by Lee and Kim Edwards, owners of unit 6937 in the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium development. The petition, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleged that the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association had violated its CC&Rs, specifically Article VI, Section 9, and Article IV, Section 1.

The central issue was the Association Board’s decision to change the long-standing method of calculating homeowner assessments. For over 40 years, assessments had been based on the square footage of each unit. In 2020, the Board implemented a new system where the Association’s annual budget was divided equally among the 26 units, with each owner paying a 1/26 share. The Petitioners sought to enforce the historical calculation method unless and until the CC&Rs were properly amended.

Chronology of the Assessment Change

• Historical Practice: For more than four decades, the Association calculated and charged member assessments based on the square footage of each condominium unit.

• Legal Consultation (January 2020): Two members of the Association’s Board consulted with an attorney regarding the legality of the historical assessment method.

• Attorney Recommendation (January 24, 2020): The attorney advised the Association that, to ensure compliance with the CC&Rs, it should calculate assessments based on each homeowner’s 1/26 interest in the common areas. The attorney’s letter stated:

• Homeowner Consultation: Following the legal advice, the Board informed homeowners that the prior square-footage method violated the CC&Rs. The Board sought input on three potential assessment methods: the 1/26 rate, a variable blended rate, or continuing with the square footage rate. A majority of homeowners selected the 1/26 rate. The Board noted that any method other than the 1/26 rate would require a formal amendment to the CC&Rs.

• Implementation (September 26, 2020): The Board officially notified homeowners that it would begin charging assessments based on the 1/26 rate and that an amendment to the CC&Rs was not necessary to implement this change.

Initial Hearing and Decision (February 2021)

An evidentiary hearing was held on February 9, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners (Edwards)

1. The historical square footage rate qualified as a “uniform rate” and was compliant with the CC&Rs.
2. By using the square footage rate for over 40 years, the Association had waived its right to enforce a different method like the 1/26 rate.

Respondent (Association)

1. The plain language of the CC&Rs requires that each homeowner pay an assessment based on the 1/26 rate.
2. It is not legally possible to waive a mandatory CC&R requirement through past practice.

On February 19, 2021, the ALJ issued a decision dismissing the petition. The judge’s conclusions of law were based on a direct interpretation of the CC&Rs:

• Uniform Rate Compliance: The ALJ determined that the “preponderance of the evidence” showed that the Association’s 1/26 rate was a uniform rate that complied with Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioners failed to meet their burden to prove that the Association had violated its governing documents.

• Outcome: The Association was deemed the prevailing party, and the petition was dismissed.

Rehearing and Final Decision (July 2021)

The Petitioners filed a request for a rehearing on March 30, 2021, which was granted. The rehearing was held on July 8, 2021. The Respondent did not appear at this hearing, as its counsel had withdrawn from representation without formally notifying the tribunal.

In the rehearing, the Petitioners introduced a new argument, alleging that the 1/26 assessment method violated Arizona state law, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1255.

• The core of this argument was that the 1/26 rate improperly included charges for “limited common elements,” such as patios and assigned parking spaces.

• The Petitioners contended that this forced all homeowners to pay for the maintenance of elements that were assigned to and benefited fewer than all units, in direct violation of the statute.

On July 28, 2021, the ALJ issued a final decision, once again dismissing the petition. The ruling hinged on the precise wording of both the state statute and the Association’s Declaration.

• Applicability of A.R.S. § 33-1255: The judge found that the statute did not apply to this matter. The relevant section of the law, A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), begins with the critical phrase: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration…”

• Supremacy of the Declaration: The ALJ concluded that the Association’s Declaration did provide otherwise. The CC&Rs explicitly:

◦ Define “Common Elements” broadly to include patios and parking areas (Article I, Section 3).

◦ Establish that each unit has an “undivided interest in the general common areas” of 1/26 (Article I, Section 5).

◦ Mandate that each unit’s share of costs for repair and maintenance of common areas is the “same as its undivided interest in the common elements” (Article IV, Section 4(d)).

• Final Outcome: Because the Declaration’s specific provisions overrode the general terms of the state statute, the Association was found to be in compliance. The petition was dismissed, and the order was deemed binding on the parties.

Key Legal Principles and Definitions

Concept

Definition / Application in Case

Burden of Proof

The Petitioners were required to establish their claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Preponderance of the Evidence

Defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The ALJ found the Petitioners failed to meet this standard in both hearings.

Restrictive Covenants

Arizona law requires that unambiguous restrictive covenants be enforced to give effect to the parties’ intent and be interpreted as a whole. The ALJ’s decisions were based on a direct interpretation of the CC&Rs’ language.

Common Elements (per CC&Rs)

A broad definition including multifamily structures, land, roofs, ceilings, foundations, storage spaces, patios, parking areas, recreational facilities, lawns, pipes, and conduits.

Unit (per CC&Rs)

A freehold estate consisting of the interior space of an apartment. The definition explicitly states that common elements are not part of the unit.

Undivided Interest (per CC&Rs)

Article I, Section 5 clearly establishes that “The undivided interest in the general common areas… which shall be conveyed with each respective units shall be 1/26.” This provision was central to the final ruling.

Study Guide – 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Lee & Kim Edwards and the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association, based on the provided legal decisions. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a detailed glossary of key terms.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in two to three sentences each, based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the central conflict between the Petitioners (Lee & Kim Edwards) and the Respondent (Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association)?

2. For over 40 years, how did the Association historically calculate assessments for homeowners?

3. What specific event in January 2020 prompted the Association’s Board to change the assessment method?

4. In the first hearing on February 9, 2021, what were the two main arguments presented by Mr. Edwards?

5. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the “uniform rate” requirement from CC&Rs Article VI, Section 9 in the initial decision?

6. Upon what new legal grounds did the Petitioners base their March 30, 2021, request for a re-hearing?

7. According to the CC&Rs, what is the defined undivided interest in the general common areas for each unit?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately conclude that Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1255 did not apply in this case?

9. What legal standard of proof did the Petitioners need to meet to successfully prove their case?

10. What was the final, binding outcome of the re-hearing held on July 8, 2021?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The central conflict concerned the method for calculating homeowner assessments. The Petitioners argued for the historical method based on unit square footage, while the Respondent implemented a new method where each of the 26 units paid an equal share (1/26 rate) of the Association’s costs.

2. For over 40 years, the Association historically calculated assessments based on the square footage of each condominium unit. This practice was changed by the Board in 2020.

3. In January 2020, two Board members met with an attorney who advised that to comply with the CC&Rs, the Association should charge assessments based on each homeowner’s 1/26 interest in the common areas, not on square footage.

4. Mr. Edwards argued that the historical square footage rate was a “uniform rate” that complied with the CC&Rs. He also contended that by using this method for 40 years, the Association had waived its right to enforce a different assessment method like the 1/26 rate.

5. The Judge concluded that the Respondent’s assessment method, based on a uniform rate of 1/26 of the Association’s costs for each unit, did comply with Article VI, Section 9. Therefore, the Petitioners failed to prove the Association had violated the CC&Rs.

6. The Petitioners based their request for a re-hearing on the new allegation that the Respondent had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1255. They argued the 1/26 rate improperly required members to pay for limited common elements, such as patios and parking spaces, not assigned to them.

7. According to Article I, Section 5 of the Declaration (CC&Rs), the undivided interest in the general common areas established and conveyed with each respective unit is 1/26.

8. The Judge concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1255 did not apply because the statute itself contains an exception: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration.” In this case, the Association’s Declaration explicitly required that each member be charged an assessment equivalent to their 1/26 interest in the total costs, which included patios and parking areas.

9. The Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish their claims by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

10. Following the re-hearing, the Administrative Law Judge again ordered that the petition of Lee & Kim Edwards be dismissed. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party, and the order was declared binding on the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Answers are not provided.

1. Trace the evolution of the Petitioners’ legal strategy from the initial petition filed on November 20, 2020, to the arguments made during the re-hearing on July 8, 2021. How did their core arguments change, and what new evidence or legal statutes were introduced?

2. Analyze the concept of a “uniform rate” as required by Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs. Discuss how both the Petitioners and the Respondent interpreted this phrase to support their respective assessment methods (square footage vs. 1/26 rate).

3. Explain in detail the role of A.R.S. § 33-1255 in the re-hearing. Why did the Petitioners believe it supported their case, and what specific language in both the statute and the Association’s Declaration led the Administrative Law Judge to rule that it did not apply?

4. Evaluate the actions taken by the Association’s Board of Directors in 2020. Consider their consultation with an attorney, their communication with homeowners, and their final decision to implement the 1/26 rate. Discuss whether these actions were consistent with the powers and obligations outlined in the CC&Rs.

5. Discuss the legal argument of “waiver” raised by Mr. Edwards in the first hearing. Explain what he meant by this and why the Association’s 40-year history of using a square-footage-based assessment was central to this claim. Why did this argument ultimately fail?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

1/26 Rate

The assessment method where the Association’s annual budget is divided 26 ways, with each unit responsible for paying an equal portion. This is based on each unit’s 1/26 undivided interest in the common areas as specified in the CC&Rs.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The independent judicial officer who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and issues a decision. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.

A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)

The Arizona Revised Statute that permits a condominium unit owner to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the Condominium Act.

A.R.S. § 33-1255

The Arizona Revised Statute concerning common expenses. It states that unless the declaration provides otherwise, expenses for a limited common element shall be assessed against the units to which it is assigned, and expenses benefitting fewer than all units shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of condominium associations in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal proceeding to establish its claims by a required standard of evidence. In this case, the Petitioners bore the burden of proof.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or condominium. Also referred to as the “Declaration” in the provided documents.

Common Area / Common Elements

As defined in Article I, Section 3 of the CC&Rs, this includes the multifamily structure (except for the units), land, air space, bearing walls, roofs, storage spaces, patios, recreational facilities, lawns, pipes, and other premises designed for common use.

Declaration

Another term for the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Lee & Kim Edwards

The Petitioners in the case and owners of unit 6937 in the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium development.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers petitions for evidentiary hearings.

Petitioners

The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Lee & Kim Edwards.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to be met by the Petitioners. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association.

Restricted Common Area

As defined in Article I, Section 3(b) of the CC&Rs, this refers to a separately designed and exclusive parking area for each unit as assigned by the Board of Directors.

Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

The Respondent in the case; the condominium unit owners’ association for the development.

Square Footage Rate

The historical method of calculating assessments for over 40 years, where each unit’s assessment was based on its square footage.

Uniform Rate

A requirement from Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs that states both regular and special assessments must be fixed at a uniform rate for all units. The interpretation of this term was central to the dispute.

As defined in Article I, Section 4 of the CC&Rs, a separately designated freehold estate consisting of the space bounded by the interior surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, windows, and floors of each apartment. It does not include common elements.

Waiver

A legal argument made by the Petitioners that because the Association had charged assessments based on square footage for 40 years, it had relinquished or “waived” its right to enforce a different method.

Blog Post – 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG

4 Shocking Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit That Could Upend How You See Your Fees

Introduction: The 40-Year Mistake

If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a Homeowners Association (HOA), you likely operate under a simple assumption: the way things have always been done is the correct and legal way. Monthly fees, maintenance schedules, and community rules that have been in place for decades feel permanent and unassailable. But what if they aren’t?

This was the central question in the case of Lee & Kim Edwards versus the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association. For over 40 years, the Association calculated homeowner fees based on the square footage of each unit—a practice that seemed fair and logical, and one that was never questioned by residents.

Then came the twist. In January 2020, after consulting with an attorney, the HOA board announced a shocking revelation: their 40-year-old assessment method was a direct violation of the community’s own governing documents. The board presented the legal findings to the community and sought their input on how to proceed. After being given the choice between the old method, a blended rate, or a new flat-rate fee that complied with the rules, most homeowners voted for the compliant flat-rate system for every single unit, regardless of its size.

Homeowners sued to keep the old method, sparking a legal battle that went all the way to an administrative court. The resulting decisions offer surprising and crucial lessons for every homeowner paying HOA dues. Here are the four most impactful takeaways from the case that could change how you view your own community’s rules.

1. “Past Practice” Means Nothing if It Violates the Rules

The primary argument made by the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, was that the Association had “waived its right” to change the assessment method. After all, by using the square-footage calculation for four decades, hadn’t they established an unbreakable precedent? It seemed like a common-sense argument rooted in history and consistency.

The court, however, completely rejected this line of reasoning. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was not based on historical practice but on the clear, written rules found in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association argued that it’s “not possible to waive the CC&R requirement,” and the court agreed.

The Lesson: This case powerfully demonstrates that tradition or “how things have always been done” cannot override the explicit language of an HOA’s governing documents. The CC&Rs are a contract. The lesson is clear: if your HOA’s practice contradicts its documents, the practice is invalid. The board has a fiduciary duty to follow the written rules, not a 40-year-old mistake.

2. Your CC&Rs Are a Binding Contract—Read Them

Throughout the legal proceedings, the Administrative Law Judge consistently referred back to the specific text of the CC&Rs to make a final decision. The entire case ultimately hinged on the interpretation of a few key sentences written decades ago.

The most critical passage, which decided the outcome, was from Article VI, Section 4(d) of the community’s governing documents:

“Each unit’s share shall be the same as its undivided interest in the common elements of the total amount determined under the subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) above.” —Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association CC&Rs, Article VI, Section 4(d)

This single sentence was the linchpin. It explicitly linked each unit’s assessment share to its “undivided interest in the common elements.” Another section of the document, Article I, Section 5, had already established that interest as an equal 1/26 for all 26 units.

The Lesson: This is a classic example of legal cross-referencing in a contract. Section 4(d) provided the instruction (base fees on “undivided interest”), while Article I, Section 5 provided the specific value (1/26). With both parts present and unambiguous, the court had no choice but to enforce them exactly as written, leaving no room for interpretations based on fairness or history. The contract was the contract.

3. A “Uniform Rate” Might Not Mean What You Think

One of the central points of contention was the term “uniform rate.” Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs required that all assessments “must be fixed at a uniform rate for all units.”

The homeowners argued that the square footage rate was, in fact, a “uniform rate”—a consistent price per square foot applied to every unit. It’s an interpretation many of us might find reasonable.

However, the HOA Board and the court had a different interpretation. The judge found that the flat 1/26 rate was the correct interpretation of a “uniform rate” because it was uniformly applied to every unit’s established 1/26 interest in the common areas. In the court’s view, the “rate” being applied uniformly was the 1/26 fraction of the total budget. The fact that this resulted in different dollar amounts for square-footage fees was irrelevant; the legal share was what had to be uniform.

The Lesson: Common-sense terms like “uniform” can have very specific legal meanings within the context of your governing documents. The true definition is found not in a dictionary, but in how the term is defined and applied by the rest of the document’s provisions.

4. Your HOA’s Rules Can Sometimes Override State Law

In a final attempt to overturn the decision, the petitioners filed for a re-hearing. This time, they cited a specific Arizona state law, A.R.S. 33-1255. This statute says that expenses for “limited common elements”—things like assigned patios or parking spaces that only benefit specific units—should be assessed only against those units that benefit from them. The homeowners argued that the new 1/26 flat fee unfairly forced them to pay for their neighbors’ patios and parking spots, a direct violation of state law.

Surprisingly, this argument also failed. The reason is found in the crucial introductory clause of the state law itself: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration…”

Because the Scottsdale Embassy’s Declaration did provide otherwise—by explicitly rolling all general and restricted common area costs into the total budget before calculating each unit’s 1/26 share—the community’s own rules legally superseded the default state statute. The judge concluded that the state law “does not apply to this matter because the Declaration requires” a different method.

The Lesson: This is perhaps the most counter-intuitive lesson of all. This demonstrates a key principle of contract law and planned community governance: state statutes often provide a “default” rule for situations a community’s documents don’t address. However, they also grant communities the power to create their own specific rules, which, if legally permissible, will take precedence. Homeowners cannot assume that a state law automatically protects them if their community’s own governing documents have a more specific rule in place.

Conclusion: Are You Sure You Know What You Agreed To?

The central message from the Scottsdale Embassy case is undeniable: in an HOA, the written word is law. The CC&Rs and other governing documents are a binding contract that dictates the rules, regardless of 40 years of history, common-sense assumptions, or even some default state laws. What you believe is fair or standard practice is irrelevant if the document you agreed to upon purchase says otherwise.

This case was decided by a few sentences written decades ago. When was the last time you read your community’s governing documents from cover to cover?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Lee Edwards (petitioner, witness)
Kim Edwards (petitioner)
Teresa H. Foster (petitioner attorney)
Ellis & Baker, P.C.
Also referred to as Terri Foster and Terry Foster

Respondent Side

Lauren Vie (respondent attorney)
Appeared for initial hearing; withdrew prior to rehearing
Caleb Koch (board member, witness)
Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association
Board President
Mary Edinburgh (board member, witness)
Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association
Beth Mulcahy (respondent attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Withdrew prior to rehearing

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Miranda Alvarez (unknown)
Listed in transmission records for Petitioner's counsel

Lee & Kim Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

Posted on February 19, 2021 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

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

Key Issues & Findings

Assessment calculation based on undivided interest in common areas

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120028-REL Decision – 856603.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:35 (98.1 KB)

21F-H2120028-REL Decision – 899379.pdf

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

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120028-REL