Tag Archives: HOA Dispute

Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC. vs Matthew P. Petrovic

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC Counsel Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Respondent Matthew P. Petrovic Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.

Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision

Respondent Matthew Petrovic successfully requested rehearing of the original ALJ decision, alleging errors of law, improper evidence rejection, procedural irregularities, and that the findings were arbitrary or capricious regarding alleged HOA enforcement violations (landscape, paint, walkway denial).

Orders: The Commissioner granted the rehearing request based on grounds of error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law, and that the findings or decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Rehearing, Procedural Error, Arbitrary Decision, Selective Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Decision Documents

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1344402.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:46 (57.4 KB)

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-02-20
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deatta M. Pleasants Counsel —
Respondent Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel David Onuschak

Alleged Violations

CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2. Maintenance and Repair, By the Association

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&Rs by the Association. The Association maintained the underground culverts in accordance with Navajo County approved plans, and the evidence established the culverts were functioning as intended. Flooding experienced by the Petitioner was expected due to the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during an exceptional storm (likely a 100-year event).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&R provision; the culverts were maintained and functioning as intended, and flooding was anticipated given the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during the exceptional storm event.

Key Issues & Findings

The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to repair or connect a culvert (common area), causing her lot located in a regulatory floodway to flood during a severe (100-year) storm in July 2021. The Respondent contended the drainage system was maintained, functioned as intended, and the flooding was due to the exceptional storm magnitude and the property's location in a floodway.

Orders: No action required of Respondent; Petitioner's Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Maintenance Violation, Drainage System, Culvert Maintenance, FEMA Floodway, 100-Year Storm, Civil Engineer Testimony
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2
  • CC&Rs Rev. September 2022, Article 1, D.

Decision Documents

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1252432.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:48 (52.5 KB)

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1275219.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:48 (128.4 KB)

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)

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 4.4

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Decision Documents

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1089588.pdf

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

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1102316.pdf

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

Michael H. Jahr v. Leisure World Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-14
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael H. Jahr Counsel —
Respondent Leisure World Community Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied Petitioner Michael H. Jahr's petition, concluding that he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARS § 33-1816, because a clothesline is not a 'solar energy device' under ARS § 44-1761, and ARS § 33-439(a) was inapplicable.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated ARS § 33-1816. The Tribunal determined that a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of ARS § 33-1816 regarding denial of utilizing solar means to reduce energy consumption.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1816 by refusing him the ability to utilize solar means (a clothesline) to reduce energy consumption, arguing the clothesline met the definition of a 'solar energy device' under ARS § 44-1761, which the HOA cannot prohibit.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. Respondent was ordered not to owe Petitioner any reimbursement for fees incurred.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1761
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-439(a)
  • Association Rules & Regulations 2-304(D)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Solar Energy Device, Clothesline, Planned Community, Statutory Interpretation, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-439(a)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(a)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1761
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
  • Association Rules & Regulations 2-304(D)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H032-REL Decision – 1041743.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:59 (161.1 KB)

23F-H032-REL Decision – 1057366.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:59 (55.7 KB)

Randall White v. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H004-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-12-29
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Randall White Counsel —
Respondent Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Counsel Carolyn Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842; Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated community documents or statutes. The ALJ noted that Petitioner lacked the authority to request the inspection on behalf of the HOA, and one primary statute cited (ARS § 10-3842) was inapplicable/outside jurisdiction.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the alleged statutory and community document violations. The ALJ found Petitioner lacked the authority to act for the Association, and the inspection had not yet commenced when directed to stop.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged interference with wildfire risk assessment

Petitioner alleged Respondent stopped the Green Valley Fire Department's in-progress wildfire risk assessment, interfering with the assessment and failing to act in good faith or in the best interests of the Corporation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. All pending post-hearing motions were denied as moot.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, wildfire risk, homeowner authority, jurisdiction, planned community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002376.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:00 (40.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002517.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:00 (5.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1014952.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:00 (45.6 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1020817.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:00 (55.1 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1022445.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:00 (170.8 KB)

Matthew E Thompson v. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H003-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-12-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Matthew E Thompson Counsel —
Respondent Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc. Counsel Beth Mulcahy, Esq. & Haidyn Di Lorenzo, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F); Deer Valley CC&Rs Articles 1.16, 6.2, 2.3, 7.1, 7.3; Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1 and 7.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated community documents by failing to replace trees on Member lots. The CC&Rs did not establish a duty for the HOA to replace homeowner trees.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; Petitioner was not an aggrieved party; Petitioner failed to establish causation by Respondent or duty to act by Respondent; trees belong to homeowners, and the Deer Valley CC&Rs do not require the HOA to replace trees under its maintenance obligations.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Respondent is responsible for replacing dead and/or dying trees on all Member Lots in accordance with cited community documents.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated governing documents by failing to replace dead trees on member lots, and sought an order compelling the replacement of 59 missing trees (at a rate of 10 per year).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F)
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 1.16
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 6.2
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 2.3
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.1
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.3
  • Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1
  • Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Landscape maintenance, Tree replacement, Burden of proof, Standing
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001043.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:55 (58.8 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001154.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:55 (7.1 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1021049.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:56 (133.5 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 999666.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:56 (53.9 KB)

Elieen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H002-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-11-17
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Eileen Ahearn Counsel —
Respondent High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Counsel Jason Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures (approved 19 July 2021)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of the right to vote in Removal/Recall Special Election

Petitioners alleged they were denied the right to vote in the July 5, 2022 Removal/Recall Special Election after their initial ballots (couriered prior to the meeting) were rejected for lacking a postmark, and their subsequent attempts to cast new ballots in person were rejected for reasons including 'double voting' or being 'too late.' The ALJ found the HOA violated its established election procedures.

Orders: The Petition was upheld, and Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Violation, Voting Rights, CCNR, Recall Election, Filing Fee Refund, Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1009442.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:49 (60.1 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1013289.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:50 (127.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996298.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:50 (54.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996319.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:50 (7.5 KB)

Terry Marvin & Lori J Lefferts v. The Stone Canyon Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts Counsel —
Respondent The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 11.3; Guidelines § 1, Items 1 & 32; Guidelines § 5, Item 12

Outcome Summary

The Petition alleging that the Stone Canyon Community Association violated its Design Guidelines by granting a variance for secondary improvements within the side-yard setback to Lot 19 owners was dismissed. The ALJ found that the DRC exercised reasonable discretion in granting a deviation (variance) under Guidelines Section 5, Item 12, and the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof.

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Design Review Committee acted reasonably within its authority to grant a deviation (variance) to the Guidelines to allow the proposed secondary improvements (grading, driveway, enclosure) within the 15’ side-yard setback in extenuating circumstances, consistent with the requirements outlined in Guideline Section 5, Item 12.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by DRC when granting a variance for side-yard setback requirements for secondary improvements.

Petitioners (Lot 20 owners) alleged the DRC violated guidelines by granting a variance to Lot 19 owners for placing secondary improvements (driveway, grading, site walls, enclosure) within the 15-foot side-yard setback. Petitioners sought rescission of the variance, arguing the DRC failed to establish an unreasonable hardship or burden as required by Guideline Section 5, Item 12, thereby acting unreasonably and causing diminution in Lot 20 value.

Orders: Petitioners' Petition is dismissed. Petitioners bear their $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 1
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
  • Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Design Review Committee, variance, setback, secondary improvements, reasonable discretion
Additional Citations:

  • CC&R Section 11.3
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 1
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
  • Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 940674.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:35 (56.7 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 953784.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:35 (64.2 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 954492.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:35 (46.5 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 958478.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:36 (48.5 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 958503.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:36 (7.4 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 990387.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:36 (167.8 KB)

Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Green Elephant

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-04-29
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —
Respondent Green Elephant Development LLC Counsel Ronald E. Huser, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199 et seq., 33-1802(4), 41-1092, ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied, and the case was vacated and remanded due to lack of jurisdiction. The OAH determined the Petitioner failed to meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community' required for the Department of Real Estate to have authority over the dispute.

Why this result: OAH lacked authority to hear the dispute because Petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association met the definition of a 'planned community' under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4). Specifically, there was no evidence of real estate ownership, roadway easements, mandatory membership, or mandatory assessments.

Key Issues & Findings

OAH jurisdiction over the dispute based on whether the Petitioner is a 'planned community.'

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated setback requirements in the Declaration of Restrictions (Section 5). Respondent moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law, arguing OAH lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner failed to prove it met the statutory definition of a 'planned community' under ARS § 33-1802(4).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied. Respondent’s motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law was granted. The matter was vacated and remanded to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Jurisdiction, Planned Community Definition, Setback Violation, Judgment as a Matter of Law, Voluntary Membership
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-112
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 958968.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:00 (45.8 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 962071.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:00 (53.3 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 966017.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:00 (143.0 KB)