Tag Archives: due process

Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-06-26
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kenneth M. Halal Counsel —
Respondent Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Alexandra M. Kurtyka

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1804; Bylaws Article 2.3, 5.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's request was dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the restriction of access to the Townsquare forum was a unilateral decision made by Townsquare, a separate legal entity. The cited statutes and Bylaws regarding due process for violations of Project Documents were found inapplicable because Townsquare and its Terms of Use are not governed by the HOA’s Project Documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the cited statutes and bylaw provisions were found inapplicable since the Townsquare platform is not owned or managed by the HOA, and the restriction was imposed solely by Townsquare based on its Terms of Use, which are not HOA Project Documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Due process violation regarding removal from HOA website forum (Townsquare Forum)

Petitioner alleged violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 33-1804, and Bylaws 2.3 and 5.2, arguing the HOA failed to provide due process when restricting his access to the Townsquare online forum. The ALJ found the cited provisions inapplicable as the restriction was imposed solely by Townsquare, a third-party entity whose Terms of Use are not Project Documents.

Orders: Petition dismissed because Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the cited statutes or Bylaws.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Bylaws Article 2.3
  • Bylaws Section 5.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Due Process, Online Forum, Townsquare, Third-Party Vendor, Project Documents
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • Bylaws Article 2.3
  • Bylaws Section 5.2
  • CC&Rs Article 1 Section 1.36
  • Townsquare Terms of Use

Decision Documents

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1183806.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:07 (61.3 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1186944.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:07 (45.9 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1193702.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:08 (171.0 KB)

Victoria J Whitaker v. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Victoria J Whitaker Counsel —
Respondent Villas at Sunland Condominium Association Counsel Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 regarding due process requirements for violation enforcement, as the Petitioner did not follow the required certified mail procedure to trigger those rights.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242. Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirement of sending a response via certified mail (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to follow due process concerning violation enforcement

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to follow due process when enforcing community documents regarding damage to a semi-common element (carport) before her purchase, leading to a violation notice and subsequent enforcement.

Orders: Petition denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium Association, Due Process, Violation Enforcement, Carport Damage, Statutory Compliance, Filing Fee Denial
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260(A)(3)(e)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • Declaration Article 5.3
  • Declaration Article 5.1
  • Declaration Article 5.2

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H021-REL Decision – 1036088.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:42 (224.9 KB)

Susan L Jarzabek v. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221008-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-19
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Susan L Jarzabek Counsel —
Respondent Hillcrest Improvement Association #2 Counsel Haidyn DiLorenzo, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 1, Section 10; Enforcement, Fines and Appeals Policy ("Policy")

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's complaint regarding the wrongful assessment of attorney's fees was dismissed because she failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated its Policy regarding pre-attorney notification requirements.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof; the ALJ found the Policy does not require the two notices prior to attorney escalation, as Petitioner had alleged.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Policy concerning attorney's fees assessment and required pre-litigation notices.

Petitioner alleged the Association wrongfully assessed attorney's fees, arguing the Policy required providing the owner two warning notices and a certified letter before escalating a matter to attorney involvement.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: attorney fees, HOA policy enforcement, notice requirements, CC&Rs, due process
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221008-REL Decision – 926455.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:01 (93.9 KB)

Steven D. Stienstra v. Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918033-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-04-01
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Steven D. Stienstra Counsel —
Respondent Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association Counsel Diana Elston, Keith D. Collett

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1806.01; CC&Rs Section 1.1; CC&Rs Section 18

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was found to have violated the CC&Rs by failing to adhere to the required enforcement procedures (Sections 1.1 and 18) when demanding repayment of legal fees. The asserted legal fees were not assigned to the Petitioner, and the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged HOA violation of A.R.S. § 33-1806.01 and CC&Rs Sections 1.1 and 18 in enforcement actions regarding rental activity, leading to unwarranted legal fees.

Petitioner claimed the HOA improperly pursued enforcement actions and demanded legal fees ($1,500, then $2,600) related to alleged short-term and piecemeal rental violations. The ALJ concluded that the subsequent enforcement letters and demand for legal fees were not within the parameters of CC&R Section 1.1 or Section 18 because Petitioner had taken action to stop the leasing and the HOA failed to follow required enforcement steps, particularly under Section 18.

Orders: HOA is required to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. The asserted legal fees demanded by HOA are not assigned to Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1806.01
  • CC&Rs Section 1.1
  • CC&Rs Section 18
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 10-3830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA enforcement action, short-term rental, CC&R violation, attorney fees recovery, due process, rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1806.01
  • CC&Rs Section 1.1
  • CC&Rs Section 18
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 10-3830
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918033-REL-RHG Decision – 779896.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:51 (210.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918033-REL-RHG


Stienstra v. Cedar Ridge HOA: Analysis of Rehearing Decision

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Rehearing Decision in the case of Steven D. Stienstra v. Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association (HOA), No. 19F-H1918033-REL-RHG. The central conflict, which initially concerned violations of the HOA’s rental restrictions, evolved into a dispute over the validity of attorney’s fees the HOA sought to impose on the homeowner.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, Steven Stienstra, finding that the HOA had failed to follow the proper enforcement procedures outlined in its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The HOA misapplied Section 1.1 of the CC&Rs to justify its demands for legal fees and bypassed the required due process steps outlined in Section 18. Despite the homeowner’s initial violations, the ALJ concluded that his subsequent compliance rendered the HOA’s escalating enforcement actions and fee demands unauthorized. The final order requires the HOA to reimburse Mr. Stienstra for his $500.00 filing fee, underscoring that an HOA’s reliance on legal counsel does not absolve it of its obligation to adhere strictly to its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

1. Case Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from rental activities at a property purchased by Steven Stienstra in August 2017 within the Cedar Ridge HOA in Sedona, Arizona. The case progressed through an initial hearing, a decision in favor of the petitioner, and an HOA-requested rehearing.

Aug 2017

Steven Stienstra purchases a residence in the Cedar Ridge HOA.

Dec 2017 – Apr 2018

Stienstra’s son manages the property, which is used by family, friends, and eventually generates revenue from short-term rentals via a VRBO listing.

Apr 2018

HOA President Bill Ferguson calls Stienstra about the short-term rental activity, which violates the CC&Rs. Stienstra testifies that he agreed to stop, and his son subsequently deactivates two of three VRBO listings and sets the third to a 30-day minimum.

Apr 26, 2018

The HOA makes its first noted contact with an attorney regarding the matter.

May 11, 2018

The HOA’s attorney sends the first Cease & Desist letter to Stienstra, demanding cessation of all rentals under 30 days within a ten-day period, citing Section 1.1 of the CC&Rs.

Jun 1, 2018

A second Cease & Desist letter is sent. While acknowledging Stienstra’s written statement of compliance, the letter demands payment of $1,500 for attorney’s fees.

Jun 17, 2018

A third Cease & Desist letter is sent, alleging new violations via a Facebook Marketplace ad for renting individual rooms. The demand for attorney’s fees increases to $2,600.

Sep 4, 2018

Three HOA Board members hold an “unofficial” meeting with Stienstra at his request.

Nov 2018

Stienstra files a formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated its own CC&Rs.

Oct 7, 2019

The initial administrative hearing is held.

Nov 15, 2019

The ALJ issues a decision in favor of Stienstra.

Dec 19, 2019

The HOA files a request for a rehearing, claiming the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.”

Mar 12, 2020

The rehearing is conducted before ALJ Kay Abramsohn.

Apr 1, 2020

The ALJ issues the final Rehearing Decision, again finding in favor of Stienstra.

2. The Central Dispute: From Rental Violations to Legal Fees

The core of the legal conflict shifted from the homeowner’s initial non-compliance to the HOA’s methods of enforcement and its subsequent demands for reimbursement of legal fees.

Initial Violations

• Short-Term Rentals: From approximately December 2017 to April 2018, Stienstra’s son listed the property on VRBO and engaged in rentals for periods of less than 30 consecutive days, a direct violation of CC&R Section 1.1.

• Partial Property Rentals: After the initial phone call from the HOA President, Stienstra’s son posted an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to rent out individual parts of the home (e.g., a “basement unit”), which violated the Section 1.1 requirement that an owner may not lease less than the “entire lot.”

Homeowner’s Stated Compliance

• Following the April 2018 phone call from HOA President Bill Ferguson, Stienstra testified that he immediately instructed his son to cease all short-term rentals. His son took down two of the three VRBO listings and modified the remaining one to prevent bookings of less than 30 days.

• When informed of the Facebook Marketplace posting via the June 17, 2018 letter, Stienstra stated he was previously unaware of it and immediately had his son take it down. He further stated no leases resulted from that posting.

HOA’s Position and Escalation

• The HOA Board did not believe the violations had ceased after the initial phone call. Their position was based on:

◦ The fact that one VRBO listing “remained active” online.

◦ The observation that the “presence of vehicles outside the home changed on a regular basis.”

• HOA Secretary Vic Burolla expressed deep distrust, stating in a hearing, “there’s no reason to suspect we would have been told the truth.”

• Based on this suspicion and the advice of their attorney, the Board chose to pursue enforcement, leading to a series of cease-and-desist letters and escalating demands for attorney’s fees, which became the primary issue of the case.

3. Analysis of HOA Enforcement Actions and Failures

The ALJ’s decision provides a detailed critique of the HOA’s enforcement strategy, concluding that it fundamentally misapplied its own governing documents and denied the homeowner required due process.

The Choice of an Improper Enforcement Path

The HOA had two primary enforcement mechanisms available in its CC&Rs: Section 1.1 (specific to leases) and Section 18 (general enforcement). The Board made a strategic decision to proceed exclusively under Section 1.1.

• HOA’s Rationale: Board Secretary Vic Burolla testified that the Board chose Section 1.1 because it “seemed more expeditious, to be able to collect” legal fees compared to the process in Section 18.

• ALJ’s Finding: This was a critical error. The ALJ concluded that Section 1.1’s provision for cost recovery applies only in a specific circumstance: when an owner fails to take legal action against a non-compliant occupant (tenant), forcing the HOA to step in and sue the occupant on behalf of the owner.

• The Reality: Stienstra did take action by instructing his son to stop the violating activities. The HOA never took legal action against an occupant. Therefore, the expenses incurred by the HOA (i.e., its own attorney’s fees for writing letters to the owner) were not recoverable under the plain language of Section 1.1.

Failure to Provide Due Process under Section 18

By avoiding Section 18, the HOA bypassed a clear, multi-step due process requirement. Section 18 mandates that the Board must:

1. Notify the owner in writing of the breach.

2. Give the owner 30 days to appear before the Board to respond.

3. Provide a reasonable time (not to exceed 60 days) to remedy the breach.

The HOA failed on all counts:

• The initial April 2018 phone call was deemed an “informational call,” not the required formal written notice.

• The HOA explicitly denied Stienstra was entitled to a formal meeting, though it granted an “unofficial” meeting on September 4, 2018. The ALJ found this did not satisfy the requirement to “appear before the Board of Directors.”

Unauthorized Demand for Fees

The ALJ found the HOA’s demands for payment to be improper and punitive.

• The June 1, 2018, letter demanded “$1,500.00 to recover attorney’s fees and costs,” but then specified this was a “number authorized by the Board as a flat amount to resolve the matter.”

• The ALJ concluded this was not a demand for actual fees incurred but was functionally “either a settlement offer or as some sort of fine, which is not authorized under Section 1.1 but only under Section 18.”

4. Key Legal Arguments and ALJ Conclusions

At the rehearing, the HOA presented several legal arguments to defend its actions, all of which were systematically dismantled by the ALJ.

HOA’s Argument

ALJ’s Conclusion

Reliance on Legal Counsel: The Board acted in good faith by discharging its duties based on the advice of its attorney, as permitted by A.R.S. § 10-3830.

Following an attorney’s advice does not absolve the Board of its duty to comply with its own CC&Rs. The actions taken were outside the parameters of the CC&Rs, making the legal advice irrelevant to the outcome. The remaining letters were “not within the purview of Section 1.1 or Section 18.”

Petitioner’s “Unclean Hands”: Because Stienstra initially violated the CC&Rs, he should not be able to seek relief from the Department for the HOA’s subsequent actions.

This equitable defense was rejected. The ALJ clarified that the remedy Stienstra sought was monetary (reimbursement of a filing fee), not equitable. The homeowner’s initial violation does not permit the HOA to violate its own enforcement procedures in response.

Justification for Action: The HOA’s belief that violations continued was reasonable based on the active VRBO listing and the presence of multiple cars.

The HOA acted on suspicion rather than confirmed facts. It had a duty to investigate further rather than simply disbelieving the homeowner’s claims of compliance. The ALJ noted that despite Stienstra’s explanation, the “HOA determined to continue enforcement action.”

Contradictory Testimony: At the initial hearing, the HOA Secretary claimed to be “not aware of any specific instructions in the CC&Rs” for enforcement. At the rehearing, he testified that the Board had discussed the options under Section 1.1 and Section 18.

The ALJ found it “implausible that the Board’s Secretary was ‘unaware'” of the CC&Rs’ enforcement procedures, suggesting the Board knowingly chose to bypass the proper channels.

5. Final Order and Implications

The Final Order: The ALJ ruled that Steven Stienstra is the prevailing party. The Cedar Ridge HOA is ordered to reimburse Stienstra for the $500.00 filing fee.

Implications: The decision serves as a powerful reminder that homeowners associations are bound by the explicit procedures laid out in their own governing documents.

• Adherence to Due Process: An HOA cannot selectively choose enforcement mechanisms to achieve a desired financial outcome, particularly if it means bypassing clear due process requirements for homeowners.

• Limitations of “Reliance on Counsel”: While seeking legal advice is prudent, it does not provide a shield for actions that are explicitly contrary to the association’s CC&Rs.

• Enforcement Based on Fact, Not Suspicion: An HOA’s belief or suspicion of an ongoing violation is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for continued punitive action when a homeowner has provided evidence of compliance. The burden is on the HOA to verify, not just assume.


Steven D. Stienstra v. Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918033-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-04-01
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Steven D. Stienstra Counsel —
Respondent Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association Counsel Diana Elston, Keith D. Collett

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1806.01; CC&Rs Section 1.1; CC&Rs Section 18

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was found to have violated the CC&Rs by failing to adhere to the required enforcement procedures (Sections 1.1 and 18) when demanding repayment of legal fees. The asserted legal fees were not assigned to the Petitioner, and the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged HOA violation of A.R.S. § 33-1806.01 and CC&Rs Sections 1.1 and 18 in enforcement actions regarding rental activity, leading to unwarranted legal fees.

Petitioner claimed the HOA improperly pursued enforcement actions and demanded legal fees ($1,500, then $2,600) related to alleged short-term and piecemeal rental violations. The ALJ concluded that the subsequent enforcement letters and demand for legal fees were not within the parameters of CC&R Section 1.1 or Section 18 because Petitioner had taken action to stop the leasing and the HOA failed to follow required enforcement steps, particularly under Section 18.

Orders: HOA is required to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. The asserted legal fees demanded by HOA are not assigned to Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1806.01
  • CC&Rs Section 1.1
  • CC&Rs Section 18
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 10-3830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA enforcement action, short-term rental, CC&R violation, attorney fees recovery, due process, rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1806.01
  • CC&Rs Section 1.1
  • CC&Rs Section 18
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 10-3830
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918033-REL-RHG Decision – 779896.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:08:16 (210.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918033-REL-RHG


Stienstra v. Cedar Ridge HOA: Analysis of Rehearing Decision

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Rehearing Decision in the case of Steven D. Stienstra v. Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association (HOA), No. 19F-H1918033-REL-RHG. The central conflict, which initially concerned violations of the HOA’s rental restrictions, evolved into a dispute over the validity of attorney’s fees the HOA sought to impose on the homeowner.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, Steven Stienstra, finding that the HOA had failed to follow the proper enforcement procedures outlined in its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The HOA misapplied Section 1.1 of the CC&Rs to justify its demands for legal fees and bypassed the required due process steps outlined in Section 18. Despite the homeowner’s initial violations, the ALJ concluded that his subsequent compliance rendered the HOA’s escalating enforcement actions and fee demands unauthorized. The final order requires the HOA to reimburse Mr. Stienstra for his $500.00 filing fee, underscoring that an HOA’s reliance on legal counsel does not absolve it of its obligation to adhere strictly to its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

1. Case Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from rental activities at a property purchased by Steven Stienstra in August 2017 within the Cedar Ridge HOA in Sedona, Arizona. The case progressed through an initial hearing, a decision in favor of the petitioner, and an HOA-requested rehearing.

Aug 2017

Steven Stienstra purchases a residence in the Cedar Ridge HOA.

Dec 2017 – Apr 2018

Stienstra’s son manages the property, which is used by family, friends, and eventually generates revenue from short-term rentals via a VRBO listing.

Apr 2018

HOA President Bill Ferguson calls Stienstra about the short-term rental activity, which violates the CC&Rs. Stienstra testifies that he agreed to stop, and his son subsequently deactivates two of three VRBO listings and sets the third to a 30-day minimum.

Apr 26, 2018

The HOA makes its first noted contact with an attorney regarding the matter.

May 11, 2018

The HOA’s attorney sends the first Cease & Desist letter to Stienstra, demanding cessation of all rentals under 30 days within a ten-day period, citing Section 1.1 of the CC&Rs.

Jun 1, 2018

A second Cease & Desist letter is sent. While acknowledging Stienstra’s written statement of compliance, the letter demands payment of $1,500 for attorney’s fees.

Jun 17, 2018

A third Cease & Desist letter is sent, alleging new violations via a Facebook Marketplace ad for renting individual rooms. The demand for attorney’s fees increases to $2,600.

Sep 4, 2018

Three HOA Board members hold an “unofficial” meeting with Stienstra at his request.

Nov 2018

Stienstra files a formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated its own CC&Rs.

Oct 7, 2019

The initial administrative hearing is held.

Nov 15, 2019

The ALJ issues a decision in favor of Stienstra.

Dec 19, 2019

The HOA files a request for a rehearing, claiming the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.”

Mar 12, 2020

The rehearing is conducted before ALJ Kay Abramsohn.

Apr 1, 2020

The ALJ issues the final Rehearing Decision, again finding in favor of Stienstra.

2. The Central Dispute: From Rental Violations to Legal Fees

The core of the legal conflict shifted from the homeowner’s initial non-compliance to the HOA’s methods of enforcement and its subsequent demands for reimbursement of legal fees.

Initial Violations

• Short-Term Rentals: From approximately December 2017 to April 2018, Stienstra’s son listed the property on VRBO and engaged in rentals for periods of less than 30 consecutive days, a direct violation of CC&R Section 1.1.

• Partial Property Rentals: After the initial phone call from the HOA President, Stienstra’s son posted an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to rent out individual parts of the home (e.g., a “basement unit”), which violated the Section 1.1 requirement that an owner may not lease less than the “entire lot.”

Homeowner’s Stated Compliance

• Following the April 2018 phone call from HOA President Bill Ferguson, Stienstra testified that he immediately instructed his son to cease all short-term rentals. His son took down two of the three VRBO listings and modified the remaining one to prevent bookings of less than 30 days.

• When informed of the Facebook Marketplace posting via the June 17, 2018 letter, Stienstra stated he was previously unaware of it and immediately had his son take it down. He further stated no leases resulted from that posting.

HOA’s Position and Escalation

• The HOA Board did not believe the violations had ceased after the initial phone call. Their position was based on:

◦ The fact that one VRBO listing “remained active” online.

◦ The observation that the “presence of vehicles outside the home changed on a regular basis.”

• HOA Secretary Vic Burolla expressed deep distrust, stating in a hearing, “there’s no reason to suspect we would have been told the truth.”

• Based on this suspicion and the advice of their attorney, the Board chose to pursue enforcement, leading to a series of cease-and-desist letters and escalating demands for attorney’s fees, which became the primary issue of the case.

3. Analysis of HOA Enforcement Actions and Failures

The ALJ’s decision provides a detailed critique of the HOA’s enforcement strategy, concluding that it fundamentally misapplied its own governing documents and denied the homeowner required due process.

The Choice of an Improper Enforcement Path

The HOA had two primary enforcement mechanisms available in its CC&Rs: Section 1.1 (specific to leases) and Section 18 (general enforcement). The Board made a strategic decision to proceed exclusively under Section 1.1.

• HOA’s Rationale: Board Secretary Vic Burolla testified that the Board chose Section 1.1 because it “seemed more expeditious, to be able to collect” legal fees compared to the process in Section 18.

• ALJ’s Finding: This was a critical error. The ALJ concluded that Section 1.1’s provision for cost recovery applies only in a specific circumstance: when an owner fails to take legal action against a non-compliant occupant (tenant), forcing the HOA to step in and sue the occupant on behalf of the owner.

• The Reality: Stienstra did take action by instructing his son to stop the violating activities. The HOA never took legal action against an occupant. Therefore, the expenses incurred by the HOA (i.e., its own attorney’s fees for writing letters to the owner) were not recoverable under the plain language of Section 1.1.

Failure to Provide Due Process under Section 18

By avoiding Section 18, the HOA bypassed a clear, multi-step due process requirement. Section 18 mandates that the Board must:

1. Notify the owner in writing of the breach.

2. Give the owner 30 days to appear before the Board to respond.

3. Provide a reasonable time (not to exceed 60 days) to remedy the breach.

The HOA failed on all counts:

• The initial April 2018 phone call was deemed an “informational call,” not the required formal written notice.

• The HOA explicitly denied Stienstra was entitled to a formal meeting, though it granted an “unofficial” meeting on September 4, 2018. The ALJ found this did not satisfy the requirement to “appear before the Board of Directors.”

Unauthorized Demand for Fees

The ALJ found the HOA’s demands for payment to be improper and punitive.

• The June 1, 2018, letter demanded “$1,500.00 to recover attorney’s fees and costs,” but then specified this was a “number authorized by the Board as a flat amount to resolve the matter.”

• The ALJ concluded this was not a demand for actual fees incurred but was functionally “either a settlement offer or as some sort of fine, which is not authorized under Section 1.1 but only under Section 18.”

4. Key Legal Arguments and ALJ Conclusions

At the rehearing, the HOA presented several legal arguments to defend its actions, all of which were systematically dismantled by the ALJ.

HOA’s Argument

ALJ’s Conclusion

Reliance on Legal Counsel: The Board acted in good faith by discharging its duties based on the advice of its attorney, as permitted by A.R.S. § 10-3830.

Following an attorney’s advice does not absolve the Board of its duty to comply with its own CC&Rs. The actions taken were outside the parameters of the CC&Rs, making the legal advice irrelevant to the outcome. The remaining letters were “not within the purview of Section 1.1 or Section 18.”

Petitioner’s “Unclean Hands”: Because Stienstra initially violated the CC&Rs, he should not be able to seek relief from the Department for the HOA’s subsequent actions.

This equitable defense was rejected. The ALJ clarified that the remedy Stienstra sought was monetary (reimbursement of a filing fee), not equitable. The homeowner’s initial violation does not permit the HOA to violate its own enforcement procedures in response.

Justification for Action: The HOA’s belief that violations continued was reasonable based on the active VRBO listing and the presence of multiple cars.

The HOA acted on suspicion rather than confirmed facts. It had a duty to investigate further rather than simply disbelieving the homeowner’s claims of compliance. The ALJ noted that despite Stienstra’s explanation, the “HOA determined to continue enforcement action.”

Contradictory Testimony: At the initial hearing, the HOA Secretary claimed to be “not aware of any specific instructions in the CC&Rs” for enforcement. At the rehearing, he testified that the Board had discussed the options under Section 1.1 and Section 18.

The ALJ found it “implausible that the Board’s Secretary was ‘unaware'” of the CC&Rs’ enforcement procedures, suggesting the Board knowingly chose to bypass the proper channels.

5. Final Order and Implications

The Final Order: The ALJ ruled that Steven Stienstra is the prevailing party. The Cedar Ridge HOA is ordered to reimburse Stienstra for the $500.00 filing fee.

Implications: The decision serves as a powerful reminder that homeowners associations are bound by the explicit procedures laid out in their own governing documents.

• Adherence to Due Process: An HOA cannot selectively choose enforcement mechanisms to achieve a desired financial outcome, particularly if it means bypassing clear due process requirements for homeowners.

• Limitations of “Reliance on Counsel”: While seeking legal advice is prudent, it does not provide a shield for actions that are explicitly contrary to the association’s CC&Rs.

• Enforcement Based on Fact, Not Suspicion: An HOA’s belief or suspicion of an ongoing violation is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for continued punitive action when a homeowner has provided evidence of compliance. The burden is on the HOA to verify, not just assume.


Michelle Ruffo vs. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-10-03
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michelle Ruffo Counsel —
Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1242, 33-1248, 33-1803(A), 33-1803(B), 33-1805; CC&Rs §§ 1.36, 1.38, 4.7, 2.8.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the governing documents or relevant statutes in assessing fines for unauthorized parking.

Why this result: Petitioner continually violated CC&R § 4.7 and failed to prove Respondent violated any CC&R or statute, particularly as A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply to disputes concerning the use of limited common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA violation of CC&Rs and Statutes by imposing parking fines

Petitioner challenged the HOA's decision to assess continuous fines against her account totaling $2,544.00 for repeatedly parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit 52, arguing the fines and enforcement lacked proper statutory process and violated CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and that the statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1242) concerning property condition notices did not apply to this dispute regarding limited common elements (parking spaces).

Orders: Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&R § 4.7
  • CC&R § 2.8.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: parking violation, fines, HOA enforcement, limited common elements, due process, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 12-349
  • CC&R § 4.7
  • CC&R § 2.8.3

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:05:38 (270.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818044-REL


Briefing Document: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, involving Petitioner Michelle Ruffo and Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association. The core of the dispute centers on a series of fines levied by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for repeatedly parking in condominium parking spaces not assigned to her unit.

The Petitioner argued that she had informal written permission from other residents to use their spaces, that the Association’s notices of violation were procedurally flawed, that she was the victim of retaliatory harassment, and that her own assigned space was frequently occupied by others. The Respondent maintained that its actions were in strict accordance with the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which unambiguously require owners to use only their assigned parking spaces and outline a formal process for reallocating them, a process the Petitioner did not follow.

The ALJ ultimately denied the petition, finding that Ms. Ruffo failed to meet her burden of proof. The decision concluded that the Association acted within its rights, that its enforcement actions were consistent with its governing documents, and that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements represented the very “evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” As of the hearing date, the outstanding balance of fines, interest, and fees on the Petitioner’s account totaled $2,544.00.

Case Background

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Representation / Key Details

Petitioner

Michelle Ruffo

Owner of unit 52, assigned parking space #131. Appeared on her own behalf.

Respondent

Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Assoc.

The condominium unit owners’ association. Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq. of Brown Olcott, PLLC.

Adjudicator

Diane Mihalsky

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Witnesses

Carol Lundberg

Testified for the Petitioner.

Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky & Gabino Trejo

Former and current property managers, respectively, who testified for the Respondent.

Core Dispute

The central issue is the Association’s imposition of fines against Ms. Ruffo for violating the community’s parking regulations. On or about April 17, 2018, Ms. Ruffo filed a petition alleging the Association violated its CC&Rs and several Arizona statutes by fining her for parking in spaces #38 and #40, which were not assigned to her unit #52. The Association denied any violation, asserting it was enforcing valid community rules.

Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict escalated over a period of approximately two years, marked by a series of notices, fines, and failed attempts at resolution.

• August 2, 2016: The Association sends a “Friendly Reminder” to Ms. Ruffo to cease parking in space #40 and use her assigned space, #131.

• August 5, 2016: A “Notice of Violation” is sent for the same issue, serving as a second warning.

• March 14, 2017: A “Final Non-Compliance Notice” is issued, noting violations in both space #40 and #38. The notice informs Ms. Ruffo of her right to a hearing with the Board of Directors if requested within 14 days.

• March 30, 2017: The first fine of $50.00 is assessed after Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle is again observed in space #38.

• April 17, 2017: Ms. Ruffo responds in writing, claiming she has permission to use the spaces and requests the fine be waived.

• April 27, 2017: The Association’s Board reviews and denies the waiver request. Ms. Ruffo was invited to address the Board but did not attend.

• June 6, 2017: A $200.00 fine is assessed for two observed violations in space #40.

• June 26, 2017: Another $200.00 fine is assessed for violations in spaces #40 and #38.

• July 11, 2017: The Association warns that access to community amenities (pool, fitness room) will be denied if fines remain unpaid. This action is later taken.

• August 31, 2017: A Board meeting is scheduled for Ms. Ruffo and her attorney, Mark F. Williman, to attend. Neither party attends, and they fail to provide advance notice. The Association incurs a $200 legal fee for its attorney’s attendance.

• September 25, 2017: Fines totaling $1,400.00 are assessed for multiple observed violations.

• September 27, 2017: The Association attempts to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. The attempt is aborted after she refuses to exit the vehicle and calls the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.

• October 4, 2017: The Association’s attorney informs Ms. Ruffo that another hearing will not be scheduled until she reimburses the Association for the $200 legal fee from the missed August 31 meeting.

• October 2017 – January 2018: A series of additional fines are assessed for ongoing violations, and Ms. Ruffo sends multiple letters requesting a hearing and protesting the fines and the $200 reimbursement requirement.

• April 17, 2018: Ms. Ruffo files the formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• September 18, 2018: The evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Michelle Ruffo)

Ms. Ruffo’s defense was multi-faceted, based on claims of permission, procedural errors by the Association, and alleged harassment.

• Claim of Permission: Ms. Ruffo testified that since 2005, she had been parking in spaces #38 and #40 with written permission. She claimed a 2006 agreement with the Morleys, then owners of unit #56, for space #40. She also submitted a 2018 email from Julie Ruiz, a tenant in unit #53, granting permission to use space #38.

• Allegations of Improper Notices: She argued the Association’s notices violated A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) because they did not always identify the person who observed the violation or provide photographic evidence.

• Allegations of Harassment and Retaliation: Through an attorney, Ms. Ruffo alleged she was being “unlawfully discriminated against and harassed in retaliation for her role related to allegations that HOA President Mitch Treese misappropriated HOA funds.” The ALJ noted that no evidence was submitted at the hearing to support this claim.

• Counter-Evidence: Ms. Ruffo submitted photographs dated from October 2016 to July 2017 showing other vehicles, including those of Associa maintenance and a landscaping contractor, parked in her assigned space #131.

• Dispute over Hearing Preconditions: She argued that the Association’s demand for a $200 reimbursement for its attorney’s fees as a condition for a new hearing was unlawful and not permitted under the CC&Rs.

Respondent’s Position (The Association)

The Association’s case rested on the explicit language of its governing documents and its adherence to established enforcement procedures.

• Primacy of the CC&Rs: The Association argued that its governing documents are unambiguous. Section 4.7 explicitly forbids owners from parking in any space other than the one assigned to their unit as a Limited Common Element.

• Formal Reallocation Process: Per Section 2.8.3, reallocating a Limited Common Element like a parking space requires a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved and submitted to the Board for approval. Ms. Ruffo never followed this procedure.

• Rejection of Informal Agreements: The property manager testified that such private agreements are not legally binding or enforceable by the Association and create confusion, as evidenced by complaints from subsequent owners and tenants who were unable to use their assigned spaces.

• Adherence to Enforcement Policy: The Association followed its documented Violation Enforcement Policy, starting with a friendly reminder and escalating to formal notices and fines for continued non-compliance.

• Opportunity to Be Heard: Ms. Ruffo was provided opportunities to address the Board on April 27, 2017, and August 31, 2017. She failed to attend either meeting, and her failure to provide notice for the latter caused the Association to incur unnecessary legal fees.

• Witness Testimony: The former property manager, Ms. Chapman, testified that she had personally witnessed all the charged violations.

Governing Documents and Statutes

The case hinged on the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs and relevant Arizona state law.

Key CC&R Provisions

Section

Provision

Relevance

Motor Vehicles: “no Owner, Lessee or Occupant may park any . . . motor vehicle . . . in any Parking Spaces other than the Parking Space assigned to the Unit as a Limited Common Element.”

The central rule that the Petitioner was found to have repeatedly violated.

§ 2.8.3

Reallocation of Limited Common Elements: A reallocation requires a formal, recorded amendment executed by the owners and submitted to the Board.

The official procedure for changing parking space assignments, which the Petitioner did not follow for her informal agreements.

§ 13.1

Enforcement: Grants the Association the right to impose monetary penalties, suspend an owner’s right to use facilities, and tow vehicles in violation of the rules, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Provides the legal authority within the governing documents for the Association’s actions (fines, suspension of amenity access, attempted tow).

§ 1.36

“Parking Space” Definition: Defines a parking space as a portion of the Limited Common Elements.

Legally classifies the disputed parking spaces, making them subject to the rules governing Limited Common Elements.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), which requires an association, upon written request from an owner, to provide details of an alleged violation, including the observer’s name and the date. The ALJ determined this statute was inapplicable to the dispute. The judge’s reasoning was that the statute applies specifically to notices regarding the “condition of the property owned by the unit owner” (i.e., her physical condo unit #52), not her use of Limited Common Elements like parking spaces, which she does not own.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision was a conclusive denial of the petition, siding entirely with the Association.

Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied because Petitioner has not established that Respondent violated the CC&Rs or any statute in assessing fines against her for her repeated violations of CC&R § 4.7 by parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit #52.”

Key Legal Conclusions

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving her claims by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so.

• Unambiguous Covenants: The CC&Rs regarding parking are unambiguous and must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. CC&R § 4.7 clearly requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.

• Invalidity of Informal Agreements: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements illustrated “the evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” These undocumented side deals create instability and conflict when properties are sold or new tenants arrive, undermining the security and order of the community’s parking plan.

• Respondent’s Proper Conduct: The Association was found to have followed its own enforcement policy and provided the Petitioner with opportunities to be heard.

• Attorney’s Fee Condition: While the CC&Rs do not explicitly authorize charging an owner for attorney’s fees as a precondition for a hearing, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(18) allows an association to “exercise any . . . powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation.” Furthermore, civil statutes often require a party to pay for fees they cause an opponent to incur unnecessarily.

• Futility of a Board Hearing: The ALJ concluded that, in light of the Petitioner’s arguments and her “continued violation of Respondent’s parking policy over nearly two years,” a hearing before the Association’s Board would not have changed her behavior or the outcome of the matter.

Financial Implications

The conflict resulted in significant financial penalties for the Petitioner. The fines were assessed on an escalating basis for continued violations.

• March 30, 2017: $50.00

• June 6, 2017: $200.00

• June 26, 2017: $200.00

• August 9, 2017: $200.00

• September 25, 2017: $1,400.00

• October 17, 2017: $100.00

• November 6, 2017: $100.00

As of the hearing on September 18, 2018, the total outstanding balance on Ms. Ruffo’s account, including interest and certified letter fees, was $2,544.00.


Michelle Ruffo vs. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-10-03
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michelle Ruffo Counsel —
Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1242, 33-1248, 33-1803(A), 33-1803(B), 33-1805; CC&Rs §§ 1.36, 1.38, 4.7, 2.8.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the governing documents or relevant statutes in assessing fines for unauthorized parking.

Why this result: Petitioner continually violated CC&R § 4.7 and failed to prove Respondent violated any CC&R or statute, particularly as A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply to disputes concerning the use of limited common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA violation of CC&Rs and Statutes by imposing parking fines

Petitioner challenged the HOA's decision to assess continuous fines against her account totaling $2,544.00 for repeatedly parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit 52, arguing the fines and enforcement lacked proper statutory process and violated CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and that the statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1242) concerning property condition notices did not apply to this dispute regarding limited common elements (parking spaces).

Orders: Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&R § 4.7
  • CC&R § 2.8.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: parking violation, fines, HOA enforcement, limited common elements, due process, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 12-349
  • CC&R § 4.7
  • CC&R § 2.8.3

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:52 (270.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818044-REL


Briefing Document: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, involving Petitioner Michelle Ruffo and Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association. The core of the dispute centers on a series of fines levied by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for repeatedly parking in condominium parking spaces not assigned to her unit.

The Petitioner argued that she had informal written permission from other residents to use their spaces, that the Association’s notices of violation were procedurally flawed, that she was the victim of retaliatory harassment, and that her own assigned space was frequently occupied by others. The Respondent maintained that its actions were in strict accordance with the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which unambiguously require owners to use only their assigned parking spaces and outline a formal process for reallocating them, a process the Petitioner did not follow.

The ALJ ultimately denied the petition, finding that Ms. Ruffo failed to meet her burden of proof. The decision concluded that the Association acted within its rights, that its enforcement actions were consistent with its governing documents, and that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements represented the very “evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” As of the hearing date, the outstanding balance of fines, interest, and fees on the Petitioner’s account totaled $2,544.00.

Case Background

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Representation / Key Details

Petitioner

Michelle Ruffo

Owner of unit 52, assigned parking space #131. Appeared on her own behalf.

Respondent

Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Assoc.

The condominium unit owners’ association. Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq. of Brown Olcott, PLLC.

Adjudicator

Diane Mihalsky

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Witnesses

Carol Lundberg

Testified for the Petitioner.

Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky & Gabino Trejo

Former and current property managers, respectively, who testified for the Respondent.

Core Dispute

The central issue is the Association’s imposition of fines against Ms. Ruffo for violating the community’s parking regulations. On or about April 17, 2018, Ms. Ruffo filed a petition alleging the Association violated its CC&Rs and several Arizona statutes by fining her for parking in spaces #38 and #40, which were not assigned to her unit #52. The Association denied any violation, asserting it was enforcing valid community rules.

Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict escalated over a period of approximately two years, marked by a series of notices, fines, and failed attempts at resolution.

• August 2, 2016: The Association sends a “Friendly Reminder” to Ms. Ruffo to cease parking in space #40 and use her assigned space, #131.

• August 5, 2016: A “Notice of Violation” is sent for the same issue, serving as a second warning.

• March 14, 2017: A “Final Non-Compliance Notice” is issued, noting violations in both space #40 and #38. The notice informs Ms. Ruffo of her right to a hearing with the Board of Directors if requested within 14 days.

• March 30, 2017: The first fine of $50.00 is assessed after Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle is again observed in space #38.

• April 17, 2017: Ms. Ruffo responds in writing, claiming she has permission to use the spaces and requests the fine be waived.

• April 27, 2017: The Association’s Board reviews and denies the waiver request. Ms. Ruffo was invited to address the Board but did not attend.

• June 6, 2017: A $200.00 fine is assessed for two observed violations in space #40.

• June 26, 2017: Another $200.00 fine is assessed for violations in spaces #40 and #38.

• July 11, 2017: The Association warns that access to community amenities (pool, fitness room) will be denied if fines remain unpaid. This action is later taken.

• August 31, 2017: A Board meeting is scheduled for Ms. Ruffo and her attorney, Mark F. Williman, to attend. Neither party attends, and they fail to provide advance notice. The Association incurs a $200 legal fee for its attorney’s attendance.

• September 25, 2017: Fines totaling $1,400.00 are assessed for multiple observed violations.

• September 27, 2017: The Association attempts to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. The attempt is aborted after she refuses to exit the vehicle and calls the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.

• October 4, 2017: The Association’s attorney informs Ms. Ruffo that another hearing will not be scheduled until she reimburses the Association for the $200 legal fee from the missed August 31 meeting.

• October 2017 – January 2018: A series of additional fines are assessed for ongoing violations, and Ms. Ruffo sends multiple letters requesting a hearing and protesting the fines and the $200 reimbursement requirement.

• April 17, 2018: Ms. Ruffo files the formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• September 18, 2018: The evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Michelle Ruffo)

Ms. Ruffo’s defense was multi-faceted, based on claims of permission, procedural errors by the Association, and alleged harassment.

• Claim of Permission: Ms. Ruffo testified that since 2005, she had been parking in spaces #38 and #40 with written permission. She claimed a 2006 agreement with the Morleys, then owners of unit #56, for space #40. She also submitted a 2018 email from Julie Ruiz, a tenant in unit #53, granting permission to use space #38.

• Allegations of Improper Notices: She argued the Association’s notices violated A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) because they did not always identify the person who observed the violation or provide photographic evidence.

• Allegations of Harassment and Retaliation: Through an attorney, Ms. Ruffo alleged she was being “unlawfully discriminated against and harassed in retaliation for her role related to allegations that HOA President Mitch Treese misappropriated HOA funds.” The ALJ noted that no evidence was submitted at the hearing to support this claim.

• Counter-Evidence: Ms. Ruffo submitted photographs dated from October 2016 to July 2017 showing other vehicles, including those of Associa maintenance and a landscaping contractor, parked in her assigned space #131.

• Dispute over Hearing Preconditions: She argued that the Association’s demand for a $200 reimbursement for its attorney’s fees as a condition for a new hearing was unlawful and not permitted under the CC&Rs.

Respondent’s Position (The Association)

The Association’s case rested on the explicit language of its governing documents and its adherence to established enforcement procedures.

• Primacy of the CC&Rs: The Association argued that its governing documents are unambiguous. Section 4.7 explicitly forbids owners from parking in any space other than the one assigned to their unit as a Limited Common Element.

• Formal Reallocation Process: Per Section 2.8.3, reallocating a Limited Common Element like a parking space requires a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved and submitted to the Board for approval. Ms. Ruffo never followed this procedure.

• Rejection of Informal Agreements: The property manager testified that such private agreements are not legally binding or enforceable by the Association and create confusion, as evidenced by complaints from subsequent owners and tenants who were unable to use their assigned spaces.

• Adherence to Enforcement Policy: The Association followed its documented Violation Enforcement Policy, starting with a friendly reminder and escalating to formal notices and fines for continued non-compliance.

• Opportunity to Be Heard: Ms. Ruffo was provided opportunities to address the Board on April 27, 2017, and August 31, 2017. She failed to attend either meeting, and her failure to provide notice for the latter caused the Association to incur unnecessary legal fees.

• Witness Testimony: The former property manager, Ms. Chapman, testified that she had personally witnessed all the charged violations.

Governing Documents and Statutes

The case hinged on the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs and relevant Arizona state law.

Key CC&R Provisions

Section

Provision

Relevance

Motor Vehicles: “no Owner, Lessee or Occupant may park any . . . motor vehicle . . . in any Parking Spaces other than the Parking Space assigned to the Unit as a Limited Common Element.”

The central rule that the Petitioner was found to have repeatedly violated.

§ 2.8.3

Reallocation of Limited Common Elements: A reallocation requires a formal, recorded amendment executed by the owners and submitted to the Board.

The official procedure for changing parking space assignments, which the Petitioner did not follow for her informal agreements.

§ 13.1

Enforcement: Grants the Association the right to impose monetary penalties, suspend an owner’s right to use facilities, and tow vehicles in violation of the rules, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Provides the legal authority within the governing documents for the Association’s actions (fines, suspension of amenity access, attempted tow).

§ 1.36

“Parking Space” Definition: Defines a parking space as a portion of the Limited Common Elements.

Legally classifies the disputed parking spaces, making them subject to the rules governing Limited Common Elements.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), which requires an association, upon written request from an owner, to provide details of an alleged violation, including the observer’s name and the date. The ALJ determined this statute was inapplicable to the dispute. The judge’s reasoning was that the statute applies specifically to notices regarding the “condition of the property owned by the unit owner” (i.e., her physical condo unit #52), not her use of Limited Common Elements like parking spaces, which she does not own.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision was a conclusive denial of the petition, siding entirely with the Association.

Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied because Petitioner has not established that Respondent violated the CC&Rs or any statute in assessing fines against her for her repeated violations of CC&R § 4.7 by parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit #52.”

Key Legal Conclusions

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving her claims by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so.

• Unambiguous Covenants: The CC&Rs regarding parking are unambiguous and must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. CC&R § 4.7 clearly requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.

• Invalidity of Informal Agreements: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements illustrated “the evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” These undocumented side deals create instability and conflict when properties are sold or new tenants arrive, undermining the security and order of the community’s parking plan.

• Respondent’s Proper Conduct: The Association was found to have followed its own enforcement policy and provided the Petitioner with opportunities to be heard.

• Attorney’s Fee Condition: While the CC&Rs do not explicitly authorize charging an owner for attorney’s fees as a precondition for a hearing, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(18) allows an association to “exercise any . . . powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation.” Furthermore, civil statutes often require a party to pay for fees they cause an opponent to incur unnecessarily.

• Futility of a Board Hearing: The ALJ concluded that, in light of the Petitioner’s arguments and her “continued violation of Respondent’s parking policy over nearly two years,” a hearing before the Association’s Board would not have changed her behavior or the outcome of the matter.

Financial Implications

The conflict resulted in significant financial penalties for the Petitioner. The fines were assessed on an escalating basis for continued violations.

• March 30, 2017: $50.00

• June 6, 2017: $200.00

• June 26, 2017: $200.00

• August 9, 2017: $200.00

• September 25, 2017: $1,400.00

• October 17, 2017: $100.00

• November 6, 2017: $100.00

As of the hearing on September 18, 2018, the total outstanding balance on Ms. Ruffo’s account, including interest and certified letter fees, was $2,544.00.