Tag Archives: HOA Dispute

Donna M Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Donna M Bischoff Counsel —
Respondent Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)
Bylaws Article 3, Section 2

Outcome Summary

The Petition was upheld on all issues asserted by the Petitioner. The Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) (failure to provide election documents), A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) (failure to hold an annual meeting in 2019), and Article 3, Section 2 of the Bylaws (improperly prohibiting write-in ballots). Respondent was ordered to supply Petitioner with relevant documents and refund the Petitioner's filing fee of $1,500.00. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Key Issues & Findings

Voting; proxies; absentee ballots; applicability; definition

Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with the required election materials and documentation from the October 2018 elections, violating statutory requirements for retention and availability of these materials for owner inspection.

Orders: Respondent ordered to supply Petitioner with the relevant documents, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1250(C), within ten (10) days of the Order.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)

Open meetings; exceptions

Respondent postponed its required yearly 2019 meeting until January 2020, resulting in a failure to hold a unit owners' association meeting in 2019 as required by statute.

Orders: Petition upheld on this issue.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)

Selection

Respondent's board of directors declared write-in ballots invalid for the November 20, 2019, election. Since the Bylaws were silent on prohibiting write-in ballots, Respondent failed to show how the ballots were invalid.

Orders: Petition upheld on this issue.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 3, Section 2 of the Bylaws

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Condominium Association, Election Procedures, Annual Meeting, Statutory Violation, Bylaw Interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • 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)
  • Bylaws Article 3, Section 2
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019033-REL Decision – 778923.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:47 (108.5 KB)

Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jennie Bennett Counsel Maxwell Riddiough
Respondent Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the backflow flap responsible for the sewage overflow was determined to be on the Petitioner’s private property (covered under CC&R Section 15) and not a common element area that the HOA was responsible for maintaining under CC&R Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

The Petitioner alleges that Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association violated community documents CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) in a single-issue petition.

Petitioner claimed the HOA (Respondent) violated CC&Rs 12(c) and 12(h)(1) by refusing to compensate her for repairs to a malfunctioning backflow flap after experiencing a sewage overflow. Respondent argued the backflow flap was located on Petitioner's private property and was her responsibility under CC&R Section 15, especially since the prior Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded before the incident.

Orders: Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 12(c)
  • CC&Rs Section 12(h)(1)
  • CC&Rs Section 15

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, CC&R violation, maintenance responsibility, private property, sewer maintenance policy
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Section 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. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019002-REL-RHG Decision – 771959.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:27 (103.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute concerned liability for the repair of a malfunctioning backflow valve that caused a sewage overflow in the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner, Jennie Bennett, alleged the Homeowners Association (HOA) violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by refusing to cover the repair costs.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision hinged on the physical location of the backflow valve. Evidence, including a plat map and photographs, established that the valve was situated on Ms. Bennett’s private property, not in a common area. Consequently, under Section 15 of the CC&Rs, maintenance and repair were deemed the homeowner’s responsibility.

A key factor in the dispute was the HOA’s rescission of a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” just 18 days before the incident. This policy had previously obligated the HOA to share repair costs. However, the Judge found that once the policy was rescinded, the HOA was no longer bound by its terms. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that the backflow valve was a common element covered by the CC&Rs, leading to the dismissal of her case.

Case Background

• Case Number: 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG

• Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

• Decision Date: February 26, 2020

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera

Parties Involved

Name / Organization

Representation

Petitioner

Jennie Bennett

Maxwell Riddiough, attorney

Respondent

Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Nathan Tennyson, attorney (Brown|Olcott, PLLC)

Management

Cadden Community Management

(Managed Respondent)

Witness

Vanessa Lubinsky

Community Manager for Respondent

Allegation

On July 10, 2019, Jennie Bennett filed a petition alleging that the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the community’s CC&Rs. These sections pertain to the HOA’s responsibility to maintain common elements, including sewer lines.

Timeline of Key Events

March 2017

The HOA adopts a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” outlining the process for sewage maintenance issues.

February 13, 2019

The HOA Board rescinds the Sewer Maintenance Policy after receiving legal guidance.

March 3, 2019

Petitioner Jennie Bennett experiences a sewage overflow caused by a malfunctioning backflow valve.

March – May 2019

Petitioner presents a repair estimate to the HOA Board, which does not address her concerns at the March, April, or May meetings.

May 22, 2019

The HOA responds to the Petitioner, but only after receiving a letter from her attorney.

July 10, 2019

Petitioner files a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Undated

Petitioner gathers 97 signatures on a grassroots petition asking the HOA to cover the repair costs due to the lack of notice.

February 7, 2020

The administrative hearing is held.

February 26, 2020

The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision dismissing the petition.

Central Arguments and Evidence

The case centered on whether the backflow valve was a common element maintained by the HOA or a fixture on private property maintained by the homeowner.

Petitioner’s Position (Jennie Bennett)

• Core Claim: The HOA was responsible for the repair cost based on its previous Sewer Maintenance Policy.

• Lack of Notification: The Petitioner testified that she was not notified that the policy had been rescinded on February 13, 2019, just two weeks before her sewage backup.

• HOA Inaction: The HOA failed to address her requests for reimbursement at three consecutive board meetings, only responding after her attorney sent a formal letter.

• Community Support: The Petitioner submitted a grassroots petition signed by 97 residents. The petition stated: “My shower backed up with feces March 3-my plumber said my flap on the back flow was gone-needed to be replace… I was told by Daniel at Cadden that the Board had rescinded the sewer policy Feb 13th-No written notice had gone out. I am asking to be covered because of the 2 week time frame and no notice.”

• Fear of Recurrence: Though no further overflows occurred, the Petitioner stated she “lived in fear of a future overflow.”

Respondent’s Position (Catalina Del Rey HOA)

• Core Claim: The backflow valve is located on the Petitioner’s private property and is therefore her responsibility under Section 15 of the CC&Rs.

• Physical Evidence: The HOA presented a plat map and photographs showing the backflow valve was located within the Petitioner’s property lines, “next to Petitioner’s walk up to her front door,” and not on common elements.

• Legal Justification for Policy Change: The HOA explained that the Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded after receiving legal guidance that it conflicted with the CC&Rs. The guidance clarified that backflow flaps are within individual homeowner units, making them a homeowner’s responsibility under Section 15.

• Procedural Correctness: HOA manager Vanessa Lubinsky testified that the rescission was a policy change, not a CC&R amendment, and therefore did not require a homeowner vote. She stated that notice of the rescission was sent to homeowners via both email and postal mail (postcards).

• Issue Classification: Ms. Lubinsky characterized the problem as a “plumbing issue, not a sewer issue, because it was located on Petitioner’s private property.”

Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision rested on the interpretation of three key sections of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

• Section 12(c): HOA Maintenance of Common Areas

◦ This section establishes the HOA’s duty to maintain common sewer lines.

• Section 12(h)(1): Assessments for Common Elements

◦ This section empowers the HOA to charge homeowners for the maintenance of common elements, including sewers.

• Section 15: Homeowner Utility Maintenance

◦ This section was pivotal, assigning responsibility for fixtures on private property to the homeowner.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the Petitioner failed to prove her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Key Findings

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, Jennie Bennett, bore the burden of proving that the HOA had violated the community documents.

2. Location is Determinative: The evidence presented, particularly the photos and plat map, conclusively showed that the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on the Petitioner’s private property and not in a common area.

3. Policy Rescission was Valid: The Judge acknowledged the timing of the policy change was “extremely unfortunate” for the Petitioner. However, once the Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded, the HOA was no longer obligated to share repair costs. The CC&Rs became the sole governing authority on the matter.

4. No Violation of CC&Rs: Because the flap was not a common element, the HOA’s refusal to pay for the repair did not constitute a violation of Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1). The responsibility fell to the homeowner under Section 15.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition be dismissed.”

The decision is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.


Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jennie Bennett Counsel Maxwell Riddiough
Respondent Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the backflow flap responsible for the sewage overflow was determined to be on the Petitioner’s private property (covered under CC&R Section 15) and not a common element area that the HOA was responsible for maintaining under CC&R Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

The Petitioner alleges that Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association violated community documents CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) in a single-issue petition.

Petitioner claimed the HOA (Respondent) violated CC&Rs 12(c) and 12(h)(1) by refusing to compensate her for repairs to a malfunctioning backflow flap after experiencing a sewage overflow. Respondent argued the backflow flap was located on Petitioner's private property and was her responsibility under CC&R Section 15, especially since the prior Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded before the incident.

Orders: Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 12(c)
  • CC&Rs Section 12(h)(1)
  • CC&Rs Section 15

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, CC&R violation, maintenance responsibility, private property, sewer maintenance policy
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Section 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. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019002-REL-RHG Decision – 771959.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:09:48 (103.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute concerned liability for the repair of a malfunctioning backflow valve that caused a sewage overflow in the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner, Jennie Bennett, alleged the Homeowners Association (HOA) violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by refusing to cover the repair costs.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision hinged on the physical location of the backflow valve. Evidence, including a plat map and photographs, established that the valve was situated on Ms. Bennett’s private property, not in a common area. Consequently, under Section 15 of the CC&Rs, maintenance and repair were deemed the homeowner’s responsibility.

A key factor in the dispute was the HOA’s rescission of a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” just 18 days before the incident. This policy had previously obligated the HOA to share repair costs. However, the Judge found that once the policy was rescinded, the HOA was no longer bound by its terms. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that the backflow valve was a common element covered by the CC&Rs, leading to the dismissal of her case.

Case Background

• Case Number: 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG

• Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

• Decision Date: February 26, 2020

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera

Parties Involved

Name / Organization

Representation

Petitioner

Jennie Bennett

Maxwell Riddiough, attorney

Respondent

Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Nathan Tennyson, attorney (Brown|Olcott, PLLC)

Management

Cadden Community Management

(Managed Respondent)

Witness

Vanessa Lubinsky

Community Manager for Respondent

Allegation

On July 10, 2019, Jennie Bennett filed a petition alleging that the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the community’s CC&Rs. These sections pertain to the HOA’s responsibility to maintain common elements, including sewer lines.

Timeline of Key Events

March 2017

The HOA adopts a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” outlining the process for sewage maintenance issues.

February 13, 2019

The HOA Board rescinds the Sewer Maintenance Policy after receiving legal guidance.

March 3, 2019

Petitioner Jennie Bennett experiences a sewage overflow caused by a malfunctioning backflow valve.

March – May 2019

Petitioner presents a repair estimate to the HOA Board, which does not address her concerns at the March, April, or May meetings.

May 22, 2019

The HOA responds to the Petitioner, but only after receiving a letter from her attorney.

July 10, 2019

Petitioner files a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Undated

Petitioner gathers 97 signatures on a grassroots petition asking the HOA to cover the repair costs due to the lack of notice.

February 7, 2020

The administrative hearing is held.

February 26, 2020

The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision dismissing the petition.

Central Arguments and Evidence

The case centered on whether the backflow valve was a common element maintained by the HOA or a fixture on private property maintained by the homeowner.

Petitioner’s Position (Jennie Bennett)

• Core Claim: The HOA was responsible for the repair cost based on its previous Sewer Maintenance Policy.

• Lack of Notification: The Petitioner testified that she was not notified that the policy had been rescinded on February 13, 2019, just two weeks before her sewage backup.

• HOA Inaction: The HOA failed to address her requests for reimbursement at three consecutive board meetings, only responding after her attorney sent a formal letter.

• Community Support: The Petitioner submitted a grassroots petition signed by 97 residents. The petition stated: “My shower backed up with feces March 3-my plumber said my flap on the back flow was gone-needed to be replace… I was told by Daniel at Cadden that the Board had rescinded the sewer policy Feb 13th-No written notice had gone out. I am asking to be covered because of the 2 week time frame and no notice.”

• Fear of Recurrence: Though no further overflows occurred, the Petitioner stated she “lived in fear of a future overflow.”

Respondent’s Position (Catalina Del Rey HOA)

• Core Claim: The backflow valve is located on the Petitioner’s private property and is therefore her responsibility under Section 15 of the CC&Rs.

• Physical Evidence: The HOA presented a plat map and photographs showing the backflow valve was located within the Petitioner’s property lines, “next to Petitioner’s walk up to her front door,” and not on common elements.

• Legal Justification for Policy Change: The HOA explained that the Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded after receiving legal guidance that it conflicted with the CC&Rs. The guidance clarified that backflow flaps are within individual homeowner units, making them a homeowner’s responsibility under Section 15.

• Procedural Correctness: HOA manager Vanessa Lubinsky testified that the rescission was a policy change, not a CC&R amendment, and therefore did not require a homeowner vote. She stated that notice of the rescission was sent to homeowners via both email and postal mail (postcards).

• Issue Classification: Ms. Lubinsky characterized the problem as a “plumbing issue, not a sewer issue, because it was located on Petitioner’s private property.”

Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision rested on the interpretation of three key sections of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

• Section 12(c): HOA Maintenance of Common Areas

◦ This section establishes the HOA’s duty to maintain common sewer lines.

• Section 12(h)(1): Assessments for Common Elements

◦ This section empowers the HOA to charge homeowners for the maintenance of common elements, including sewers.

• Section 15: Homeowner Utility Maintenance

◦ This section was pivotal, assigning responsibility for fixtures on private property to the homeowner.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the Petitioner failed to prove her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Key Findings

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, Jennie Bennett, bore the burden of proving that the HOA had violated the community documents.

2. Location is Determinative: The evidence presented, particularly the photos and plat map, conclusively showed that the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on the Petitioner’s private property and not in a common area.

3. Policy Rescission was Valid: The Judge acknowledged the timing of the policy change was “extremely unfortunate” for the Petitioner. However, once the Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded, the HOA was no longer obligated to share repair costs. The CC&Rs became the sole governing authority on the matter.

4. No Violation of CC&Rs: Because the flap was not a common element, the HOA’s refusal to pay for the repair did not constitute a violation of Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1). The responsibility fell to the homeowner under Section 15.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition be dismissed.”

The decision is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.


Dennis J Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919069-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-24
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis J Gregory Counsel —
Respondent Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association Counsel Marc Vasquez

Alleged Violations

8.1.7 of CC&Rs; A.R.S. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of the HOA's CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The HOA had acknowledged its error regarding the palm trees, issued an apology, and expunged the record, thereby resolving the substantive dispute and making the remaining allegations moot.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated governing documents or statute when the Respondent had already resolved the underlying issue by apology and expungement, and no financial penalties were assessed.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Governing Documents and Planned Community Statute

Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 by fraudulently sending a courtesy notice regarding unapproved palm trees and subsequently deceiving Petitioner, despite the underlying tree issue being resolved and expunged.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16.1
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Planned Community Statute, CC&Rs violation, Expungement of record, Mootness
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16.1
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919069-REL Decision – 740332.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:21 (85.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919069-REL


Briefing Document: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA (Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning a petition filed by homeowner Dennis Gregory against the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The petition was ultimately denied.

The dispute originated from an incorrect violation notice sent by the HOA on July 13, 2018, regarding palm trees on the Petitioner’s property. The HOA subsequently discovered its error, recognizing the trees were on its “Recommended Plant List.” Consequently, the HOA issued a formal apology to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, and expunged the violation notice from all records. No fines or penalties were ever imposed.

Despite the resolution, the Petitioner filed a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 24, 2019. He alleged the initial notice was fraudulent and that an employee of the HOA’s management company had lied and threatened him. The Administrative Law Judge, Antara Nath Rivera, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The Judge determined that the HOA’s prompt corrective actions—issuing an apology, retracting the notice, and imposing no fines—rendered the issue moot.

Case Overview

The hearing addressed a petition filed by Dennis Gregory alleging that the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona state law.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H1919069-REL

Petitioner

Dennis J Gregory

Respondent

Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Presiding Judge

Antara Nath Rivera, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

September 4, 2019

Decision Date

September 24, 2019

Chronology of Events

• July 13, 2018: The HOA sends a courtesy notice to Dennis Gregory requesting the removal of palm trees, citing a violation of the CC&Rs.

• Post-July 13, 2018: Gregory disputes the violation. Upon review, the HOA discovers the palm trees are on its “Recommended Plant List” and therefore permissible.

• August 16, 2018: The HOA sends Gregory a letter of apology via both email and postal mail, deeming the violation notice invalid.

• May 24, 2019: Gregory files a two-issue Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• June 28, 2019: The HOA files its formal answer to the petition.

• September 4, 2019: An administrative hearing is conducted, with testimony from Gregory and Marc Vasquez, Vice President of the HOA’s management company.

• September 24, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision denying the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony

Dennis Gregory filed the petition after the palm tree issue was resolved because he was upset with the HOA’s handling of the matter. His testimony and allegations included:

• Primary Motivation: He believed the HOA “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter.”

• Allegations of Deception:

◦ The HOA lied about the Board members discussing the palm tree issue prior to sending the notice.

◦ Annette McCraw of Trestle Management Group lied to him about speaking with the board.

◦ The HOA deceptively changed the CC&Rs regarding the names of permitted trees.

◦ The HOA failed to disclose the identity of the individual who falsely claimed his palm trees were poisonous.

• Allegations of Misconduct: He stated that Annette McCraw had threatened him with a lawyer.

• Legal Claim: He opined that these actions constituted a violation of the community’s CC&Rs (specifically 8.1.7) and Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1803.

• Acknowledged Facts: During his testimony, Gregory confirmed that the HOA never imposed any fines and that he received the apology letter issued on August 16, 2018.

Respondent’s Position and Actions

The HOA, represented by Marc Vasquez of Trestle Management Group, maintained that it had taken all necessary steps to rectify its initial error.

• Admission of Error: The Respondent acknowledged that the initial violation notice was sent in error.

• Corrective Measures:

◦ It issued a formal apology letter once the mistake was identified.

◦ The courtesy letter was “removed and expunged” from both the Respondent’s and Petitioner’s records to preserve the Petitioner’s good standing.

◦ Marc Vasquez personally apologized to Gregory at a board meeting.

• No Penalties: The Respondent confirmed that no fines or sanctions were ever imposed on the Petitioner.

• Personnel Status: Vasquez testified that Annette McCraw, the employee accused of misconduct by the Petitioner, was no longer employed by Trestle Management Group.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Order

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Reasoning

1. Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving that the HOA violated its CC&Rs and state statutes. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning evidence sufficient to convince a trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

2. Failure to Meet Burden: The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard. This conclusion was based on several key facts established during the hearing:

◦ The Petitioner himself acknowledged that he was never financially penalized.

◦ The Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the HOA’s apology letter.

◦ Evidence showed the palm trees were, in fact, compliant with HOA rules.

◦ The violation notice was officially “removed and expunged” from all records.

3. Mootness of the Issue: The decision states, “the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.” The HOA’s corrective actions effectively nullified the original dispute before it escalated to the point of requiring legal sanctions.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

The decision also included a notice that the order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.


Dennis J Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919069-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-24
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis J Gregory Counsel —
Respondent Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association Counsel Marc Vasquez

Alleged Violations

8.1.7 of CC&Rs; A.R.S. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of the HOA's CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The HOA had acknowledged its error regarding the palm trees, issued an apology, and expunged the record, thereby resolving the substantive dispute and making the remaining allegations moot.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated governing documents or statute when the Respondent had already resolved the underlying issue by apology and expungement, and no financial penalties were assessed.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Governing Documents and Planned Community Statute

Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 by fraudulently sending a courtesy notice regarding unapproved palm trees and subsequently deceiving Petitioner, despite the underlying tree issue being resolved and expunged.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16.1
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Planned Community Statute, CC&Rs violation, Expungement of record, Mootness
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16.1
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919069-REL Decision – 740332.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:09:35 (85.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919069-REL


Briefing Document: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA (Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning a petition filed by homeowner Dennis Gregory against the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The petition was ultimately denied.

The dispute originated from an incorrect violation notice sent by the HOA on July 13, 2018, regarding palm trees on the Petitioner’s property. The HOA subsequently discovered its error, recognizing the trees were on its “Recommended Plant List.” Consequently, the HOA issued a formal apology to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, and expunged the violation notice from all records. No fines or penalties were ever imposed.

Despite the resolution, the Petitioner filed a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 24, 2019. He alleged the initial notice was fraudulent and that an employee of the HOA’s management company had lied and threatened him. The Administrative Law Judge, Antara Nath Rivera, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The Judge determined that the HOA’s prompt corrective actions—issuing an apology, retracting the notice, and imposing no fines—rendered the issue moot.

Case Overview

The hearing addressed a petition filed by Dennis Gregory alleging that the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona state law.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H1919069-REL

Petitioner

Dennis J Gregory

Respondent

Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Presiding Judge

Antara Nath Rivera, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

September 4, 2019

Decision Date

September 24, 2019

Chronology of Events

• July 13, 2018: The HOA sends a courtesy notice to Dennis Gregory requesting the removal of palm trees, citing a violation of the CC&Rs.

• Post-July 13, 2018: Gregory disputes the violation. Upon review, the HOA discovers the palm trees are on its “Recommended Plant List” and therefore permissible.

• August 16, 2018: The HOA sends Gregory a letter of apology via both email and postal mail, deeming the violation notice invalid.

• May 24, 2019: Gregory files a two-issue Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• June 28, 2019: The HOA files its formal answer to the petition.

• September 4, 2019: An administrative hearing is conducted, with testimony from Gregory and Marc Vasquez, Vice President of the HOA’s management company.

• September 24, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision denying the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony

Dennis Gregory filed the petition after the palm tree issue was resolved because he was upset with the HOA’s handling of the matter. His testimony and allegations included:

• Primary Motivation: He believed the HOA “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter.”

• Allegations of Deception:

◦ The HOA lied about the Board members discussing the palm tree issue prior to sending the notice.

◦ Annette McCraw of Trestle Management Group lied to him about speaking with the board.

◦ The HOA deceptively changed the CC&Rs regarding the names of permitted trees.

◦ The HOA failed to disclose the identity of the individual who falsely claimed his palm trees were poisonous.

• Allegations of Misconduct: He stated that Annette McCraw had threatened him with a lawyer.

• Legal Claim: He opined that these actions constituted a violation of the community’s CC&Rs (specifically 8.1.7) and Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1803.

• Acknowledged Facts: During his testimony, Gregory confirmed that the HOA never imposed any fines and that he received the apology letter issued on August 16, 2018.

Respondent’s Position and Actions

The HOA, represented by Marc Vasquez of Trestle Management Group, maintained that it had taken all necessary steps to rectify its initial error.

• Admission of Error: The Respondent acknowledged that the initial violation notice was sent in error.

• Corrective Measures:

◦ It issued a formal apology letter once the mistake was identified.

◦ The courtesy letter was “removed and expunged” from both the Respondent’s and Petitioner’s records to preserve the Petitioner’s good standing.

◦ Marc Vasquez personally apologized to Gregory at a board meeting.

• No Penalties: The Respondent confirmed that no fines or sanctions were ever imposed on the Petitioner.

• Personnel Status: Vasquez testified that Annette McCraw, the employee accused of misconduct by the Petitioner, was no longer employed by Trestle Management Group.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Order

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Reasoning

1. Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving that the HOA violated its CC&Rs and state statutes. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning evidence sufficient to convince a trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

2. Failure to Meet Burden: The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard. This conclusion was based on several key facts established during the hearing:

◦ The Petitioner himself acknowledged that he was never financially penalized.

◦ The Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the HOA’s apology letter.

◦ Evidence showed the palm trees were, in fact, compliant with HOA rules.

◦ The violation notice was officially “removed and expunged” from all records.

3. Mootness of the Issue: The decision states, “the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.” The HOA’s corrective actions effectively nullified the original dispute before it escalated to the point of requiring legal sanctions.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

The decision also included a notice that the order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.


Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-12-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel —
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners' Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Bylaw 2.4

Outcome Summary

In the initial decision, Petitioner established violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) (election materials disposal) and A.R.S. § 33-1804 (closed/improperly noticed meetings), but failed to establish a violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Issue 1). The rehearing only addressed Issue 1, which was ultimately dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 1 (Bylaw 2.4 violation) because the ALJ found that while the Bylaw applied to Members, Petitioner failed to show it prohibited a Director from raising concerns about election validity after the meeting adjourned, and the investigation was initiated by a Board member immediately following the meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Election Objection Waiver)

Whether Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4 when it acted on an objection to the election results raised the day after the Annual Meeting, given that the Bylaw requires members to object to irregularities 'at the meeting' to avoid waiver.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed as to Issue 1.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Challenge, Bylaw Violation, Meeting Notice, Record Retention, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1813
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Bylaw 3.3
  • Bylaw 2.4

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818035-REL-RHG Decision – 678304.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:46 (117.5 KB)

18F-H1818035-REL-RHG Decision – 678305.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:46 (38.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG


Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA: Case Briefing

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between Petitioner Tom Barrs and the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA) concerning the HOA’s March 18, 2017, Board of Directors election. The petitioner alleged that the HOA improperly overturned the initial election results, mishandled election materials, and held meetings in violation of state law and its own bylaws.

An initial ruling by an Administrative Law Judge found the HOA in violation of state statutes regarding the retention of election materials (A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)) and open meeting laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804). However, the judge ruled against the petitioner on the central claim that the HOA violated Bylaw 2.4 by investigating the election after the annual meeting had concluded.

The petitioner requested and was granted a rehearing, which focused exclusively on the alleged violation of Bylaw 2.4. The final decision on rehearing, issued December 26, 2018, reaffirmed the initial ruling. The judge concluded that the investigation was properly initiated by a board member, not a general member, and that the bylaw restricting post-meeting objections did not apply to the Board of Directors itself. Consequently, the petition regarding the overturning of the election was dismissed.

Case Overview

This document details the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the administrative case No. 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG, heard in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

18F-H1818035-REL-RHG

Petitioner

Tom Barrs

Respondent

Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association

Presiding Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer, Administrative Law Judge

Initial Hearing

Not specified in document

Rehearing Date

December 6, 2018

Decision Date

December 26, 2018

Key Individuals:

• Tom Barrs: Petitioner.

• Catherine Overby: HOA President, appeared for Respondent.

• Brian Schoeffler: HOA Vice President, appeared for Respondent; candidate in the disputed election.

• Jerome Klinger: Candidate initially announced as a winner of the election.

• Patrick Rice: Board member at the time of the election.

Chronology of the 2017 Election Dispute

1. Pre-March 18, 2017: Absentee ballots are sent to HOA members listing Catherine Overby and Brian Schoeffler as candidates, with a space for a write-in.

2. March 18, 2017: At the Annual Meeting, ballots are submitted and counted. Catherine Overby and write-in candidate Jerome Klinger are announced as the winners. No members object before the meeting is adjourned. Immediately following, board member Patrick Rice gathers the ballots and expresses concerns about the results.

3. March 19, 2017: Brian Schoeffler sends an email to board members asking for a review and a decision on whether a “revote” is necessary.

4. March 20, 2017: Catherine Overby emails the HOA membership, stating the election has been “contested” and that the board must investigate. She also asserts that bylaws do not allow write-in candidates, meaning she and Schoeffler were the new directors based on the vote count.

5. March 29, 2017: Certain board members, including Overby and Rice, meet with an attorney at Overby’s house. They discover that duplicate and proxy ballots were improperly counted.

6. Post-March 29, 2017: The board determines the valid votes resulted in a tie between Schoeffler and Klinger. A run-off election is scheduled.

7. April 29, 2017: The run-off election is held. Brian Schoeffler is announced as the winner.

8. May 10, 2017: The Board of Directors holds an organizational meeting.

Procedural History and Allegations

Initial Petition and Hearing

• March 19, 2018: Tom Barrs files a single-issue HOA Dispute Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee but including a four-page narrative alleging multiple violations.

• April 13, 2018: Barrs files an amended petition, adding an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

• July 30, 2018: Barrs pays to convert the petition to a multiple-issue dispute and submits a “Clarification of Three Issues alleged in Petition.”

The three core issues alleged by the petitioner were:

1. Improper Overturning of Election: The Board of Directors improperly removed Jerome Klinger by overturning the March 18, 2017 election results. The petitioner argued the challenge by the third candidate was barred by Bylaw 2.4, and the methods used violated recall protocols under A.R.S. § 33-1813 and Bylaw 3.3.

2. Improper Handling of Election Materials: The board violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by disposing of election materials (ballot envelopes) required to be kept for one year and by selectively invalidating votes cast on invalid ballots.

3. Improperly Held Meetings: Meetings related to the 2017 election were held as closed sessions or without proper notice in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Initial Decision

Following the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision with the following conclusions:

• Violation Found: The Respondent (HOA) violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) by discarding the ballot envelopes around the time of the election.

• Violation Found: The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding meetings that were closed and/or without proper notice.

• No Violation Found: The Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4.

Rehearing and Final Order

• October 1, 2018: Barrs files a request for rehearing, citing misconduct, insufficient penalties, errors of law, and a decision not supported by evidence.

• November 2, 2018: The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

• December 6, 2018: At the rehearing, the petitioner states he is only seeking reconsideration of Issue 1 (the improper overturning of the election) and not the lack of penalties for Issues 2 and 3.

Judicial Analysis and Final Rulings

The final decision focused solely on whether the HOA’s actions violated its own bylaws regarding election challenges.

Key Bylaw and Legal Standard

• Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4: The central bylaw in dispute states:

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner bore the burden of proving the violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Analysis of Issue 1: Violation of Bylaw 2.4

• Petitioner’s Argument: Mr. Barrs argued that because candidate Brian Schoeffler did not object to the election results before the March 18, 2017 meeting adjourned, Bylaw 2.4 barred the board from investigating his concerns raised the following day via email. The petitioner contended that board members are also “Members” and thus are bound by this rule.

• Evidence Presented: Testimony established that Patrick Rice, acting as a Board member, expressed concerns with the vote count immediately after the meeting adjourned. This, not Mr. Schoeffler’s subsequent email, initiated the board’s investigation. At the rehearing, the petitioner presented selected audio clips he had recorded to support his arguments but did not provide the entire recording.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ made a critical distinction between the terms used in the HOA’s bylaws.

◦ The terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were found to have specific, non-interchangeable meanings throughout the bylaws.

◦ Bylaw 2.4 applies specifically to a “Member.”

◦ The petitioner made no showing that a “Director” or the “Board of Directors” could not raise questions about the validity of election results after a meeting had adjourned.

◦ Since the investigation was initiated by a board member (Rice) and not exclusively by a member’s untimely objection (Schoeffler), the board’s actions did not violate Bylaw 2.4.

Final Order

Based on the analysis from the rehearing, the judge issued the following order:

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed as to Issue 1.

This order, resulting from a rehearing, is legally binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days of the order’s service date.


Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-12-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel —
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners' Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Bylaw 2.4

Outcome Summary

In the initial decision, Petitioner established violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) (election materials disposal) and A.R.S. § 33-1804 (closed/improperly noticed meetings), but failed to establish a violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Issue 1). The rehearing only addressed Issue 1, which was ultimately dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 1 (Bylaw 2.4 violation) because the ALJ found that while the Bylaw applied to Members, Petitioner failed to show it prohibited a Director from raising concerns about election validity after the meeting adjourned, and the investigation was initiated by a Board member immediately following the meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Election Objection Waiver)

Whether Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4 when it acted on an objection to the election results raised the day after the Annual Meeting, given that the Bylaw requires members to object to irregularities 'at the meeting' to avoid waiver.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed as to Issue 1.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Challenge, Bylaw Violation, Meeting Notice, Record Retention, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1813
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Bylaw 3.3
  • Bylaw 2.4

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818035-REL-RHG Decision – 678304.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:05:24 (117.5 KB)

18F-H1818035-REL-RHG Decision – 678305.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:05:25 (38.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG


Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA: Case Briefing

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between Petitioner Tom Barrs and the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA) concerning the HOA’s March 18, 2017, Board of Directors election. The petitioner alleged that the HOA improperly overturned the initial election results, mishandled election materials, and held meetings in violation of state law and its own bylaws.

An initial ruling by an Administrative Law Judge found the HOA in violation of state statutes regarding the retention of election materials (A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)) and open meeting laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804). However, the judge ruled against the petitioner on the central claim that the HOA violated Bylaw 2.4 by investigating the election after the annual meeting had concluded.

The petitioner requested and was granted a rehearing, which focused exclusively on the alleged violation of Bylaw 2.4. The final decision on rehearing, issued December 26, 2018, reaffirmed the initial ruling. The judge concluded that the investigation was properly initiated by a board member, not a general member, and that the bylaw restricting post-meeting objections did not apply to the Board of Directors itself. Consequently, the petition regarding the overturning of the election was dismissed.

Case Overview

This document details the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the administrative case No. 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG, heard in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

18F-H1818035-REL-RHG

Petitioner

Tom Barrs

Respondent

Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association

Presiding Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer, Administrative Law Judge

Initial Hearing

Not specified in document

Rehearing Date

December 6, 2018

Decision Date

December 26, 2018

Key Individuals:

• Tom Barrs: Petitioner.

• Catherine Overby: HOA President, appeared for Respondent.

• Brian Schoeffler: HOA Vice President, appeared for Respondent; candidate in the disputed election.

• Jerome Klinger: Candidate initially announced as a winner of the election.

• Patrick Rice: Board member at the time of the election.

Chronology of the 2017 Election Dispute

1. Pre-March 18, 2017: Absentee ballots are sent to HOA members listing Catherine Overby and Brian Schoeffler as candidates, with a space for a write-in.

2. March 18, 2017: At the Annual Meeting, ballots are submitted and counted. Catherine Overby and write-in candidate Jerome Klinger are announced as the winners. No members object before the meeting is adjourned. Immediately following, board member Patrick Rice gathers the ballots and expresses concerns about the results.

3. March 19, 2017: Brian Schoeffler sends an email to board members asking for a review and a decision on whether a “revote” is necessary.

4. March 20, 2017: Catherine Overby emails the HOA membership, stating the election has been “contested” and that the board must investigate. She also asserts that bylaws do not allow write-in candidates, meaning she and Schoeffler were the new directors based on the vote count.

5. March 29, 2017: Certain board members, including Overby and Rice, meet with an attorney at Overby’s house. They discover that duplicate and proxy ballots were improperly counted.

6. Post-March 29, 2017: The board determines the valid votes resulted in a tie between Schoeffler and Klinger. A run-off election is scheduled.

7. April 29, 2017: The run-off election is held. Brian Schoeffler is announced as the winner.

8. May 10, 2017: The Board of Directors holds an organizational meeting.

Procedural History and Allegations

Initial Petition and Hearing

• March 19, 2018: Tom Barrs files a single-issue HOA Dispute Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee but including a four-page narrative alleging multiple violations.

• April 13, 2018: Barrs files an amended petition, adding an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

• July 30, 2018: Barrs pays to convert the petition to a multiple-issue dispute and submits a “Clarification of Three Issues alleged in Petition.”

The three core issues alleged by the petitioner were:

1. Improper Overturning of Election: The Board of Directors improperly removed Jerome Klinger by overturning the March 18, 2017 election results. The petitioner argued the challenge by the third candidate was barred by Bylaw 2.4, and the methods used violated recall protocols under A.R.S. § 33-1813 and Bylaw 3.3.

2. Improper Handling of Election Materials: The board violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by disposing of election materials (ballot envelopes) required to be kept for one year and by selectively invalidating votes cast on invalid ballots.

3. Improperly Held Meetings: Meetings related to the 2017 election were held as closed sessions or without proper notice in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Initial Decision

Following the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision with the following conclusions:

• Violation Found: The Respondent (HOA) violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) by discarding the ballot envelopes around the time of the election.

• Violation Found: The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding meetings that were closed and/or without proper notice.

• No Violation Found: The Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4.

Rehearing and Final Order

• October 1, 2018: Barrs files a request for rehearing, citing misconduct, insufficient penalties, errors of law, and a decision not supported by evidence.

• November 2, 2018: The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

• December 6, 2018: At the rehearing, the petitioner states he is only seeking reconsideration of Issue 1 (the improper overturning of the election) and not the lack of penalties for Issues 2 and 3.

Judicial Analysis and Final Rulings

The final decision focused solely on whether the HOA’s actions violated its own bylaws regarding election challenges.

Key Bylaw and Legal Standard

• Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4: The central bylaw in dispute states:

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner bore the burden of proving the violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Analysis of Issue 1: Violation of Bylaw 2.4

• Petitioner’s Argument: Mr. Barrs argued that because candidate Brian Schoeffler did not object to the election results before the March 18, 2017 meeting adjourned, Bylaw 2.4 barred the board from investigating his concerns raised the following day via email. The petitioner contended that board members are also “Members” and thus are bound by this rule.

• Evidence Presented: Testimony established that Patrick Rice, acting as a Board member, expressed concerns with the vote count immediately after the meeting adjourned. This, not Mr. Schoeffler’s subsequent email, initiated the board’s investigation. At the rehearing, the petitioner presented selected audio clips he had recorded to support his arguments but did not provide the entire recording.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ made a critical distinction between the terms used in the HOA’s bylaws.

◦ The terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were found to have specific, non-interchangeable meanings throughout the bylaws.

◦ Bylaw 2.4 applies specifically to a “Member.”

◦ The petitioner made no showing that a “Director” or the “Board of Directors” could not raise questions about the validity of election results after a meeting had adjourned.

◦ Since the investigation was initiated by a board member (Rice) and not exclusively by a member’s untimely objection (Schoeffler), the board’s actions did not violate Bylaw 2.4.

Final Order

Based on the analysis from the rehearing, the judge issued the following order:

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed as to Issue 1.

This order, resulting from a rehearing, is legally binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days of the order’s service date.


George E Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918013-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-12-17
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner George E Lord Counsel —
Respondent The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association Counsel Maria Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, and CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, or the association's CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of any statute or covenant alleged. The core findings supported the HOA's position that the lessee was engaging in prohibited business activity and subletting, and that the charged attorney fees were permissible.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations concerning notice procedures, leasing restrictions, prohibited business use, and excessive fees.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 by failing to include proper citations in violation notices, violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 and CC&Rs by imposing illegal restrictions on occupancy dates and prohibiting tenant guests, and violated fee limits under A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) by charging $250 in attorney fees.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Section 7.21
  • CC&Rs Section 7.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, HOA dispute, leasing restrictions, short-term rental, business use, notice procedure, attorney fees
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Section 7.21
  • CC&Rs Section 7.3

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677039.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:32 (115.9 KB)

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:32 (47.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918013-REL


Briefing: Administrative Law Judge Decision in Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 19F-H1918013-REL, a dispute between unit owner George E. Lord (Petitioner) and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated multiple Arizona statutes and its own governing documents by suspending amenity access and levying fees related to a complex leasing arrangement. The Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in its entirety, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove any violations. The central issue revolved around the Petitioner’s tenant, Barrie Shepley, who leased three units to house clients for his commercial fitness camps. The Judge concluded this arrangement constituted a prohibited business use and a form of subletting, justifying the Association’s enforcement actions, including the suspension of amenities. The ruling affirmed the Association’s right to regulate occupancy to prevent an “itinerant population” and upheld its procedural actions regarding violation notices and the charging of attorney’s fees.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

This matter was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings to resolve a dispute between a condominium unit owner and the homeowners association (HOA) regarding alleged violations of leasing policies and state law.

Case Number

19F-H1918013-REL

Petitioner

George E. Lord

Respondent

The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Hearing Date

November 26, 2018

Decision Date

December 17, 2018

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Procedural Background

1. On August 31, 2018, George Lord filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that The Boulders HOA had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, and the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

2. The Respondent filed an answer on September 25, 2018, denying all allegations.

3. A hearing was conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings on November 26, 2018, where both parties presented evidence and arguments.

——————————————————————————–

Core Dispute and Factual Background

The dispute originated from leases for three condominium units owned by the Petitioner. The central conflict was whether the occupants were legitimate guests of a primary lessee or participants in a short-term rental business that violated the community’s governing documents.

The Leasing Arrangement

• Lessee: The Petitioner, George Lord, leased two units to Barrie Shepley on December 4, 2017, for a term of March 7, 2018, to April 30, 2018. A third lease was transferred to a unit owned by the Petitioner on January 15, 2018.

• Lessee’s Business: Mr. Shepley operated a Canadian fitness business named “Personal Best,” which offered training camps in the Tucson area.

• Use of Units: The leased units at The Boulders were used to provide accommodations for clients attending six fitness camps scheduled between March 8 and April 29, 2018.

• Pricing Structure: The cost of the camp varied based on the living arrangements. The price per person decreased as more campers shared a single condo:

◦ Four campers per condo: $950.00 each

◦ Three campers per condo: $1,075.00 each

◦ Two campers per condo: $1,299.00 each

• It was noted that no fitness instruction was scheduled to occur on The Boulders’ property.

HOA Intervention and Consequences

• Initial Action: On March 9, 2018, The Boulders’ Community Manager, Danielle Morris, emailed the Petitioner expressing concern that Mr. Shepley was “subleasing your units out to different people in violation of the CC&R’s” for terms less than the 30-day minimum. The HOA deactivated the amenity access cards for all three units.

• Escalation: After email exchanges where the Petitioner argued the occupants were merely “guests,” the HOA maintained that it required the names of all occupants and proof of a minimum 30-day stay for each.

• Notices of Violation: On March 18, 2018, the Petitioner received formal Notices of Violations for the three units. The notices stated that amenity access was suspended because the HOA had not been provided “the names of the adult occupants residing in the unit or the timeframes of the occupant’s stay.” The notice warned that a $300 fine could be applied.

• Legal Fees: On March 22, 2018, the Petitioner received a letter from the Respondent’s counsel asserting the HOA’s legal position and stating that $250.00 in attorney’s fees had already been incurred and were due from the Petitioner.

• Financial Loss: On April 2, 2018, Mr. Shepley canceled the remainder of the leases due to the lack of amenity access for his clients. The Petitioner claimed a resulting loss of $6,900.00 in rental income for April 2018.

——————————————————————————–

Judicial Findings and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge analyzed three distinct allegations made by the Petitioner and found that he failed to meet the burden of proof for any of them. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

Alleged Violation 1: A.R.S. § 33-1242 (Adequacy of Violation Notice)

• Petitioner’s Claim: The HOA violated the statute because its initial Notices of Violations failed to cite the specific provision of the governing documents that had allegedly been violated.

• Judge’s Conclusion: The Judge found no violation. A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) requires an association to provide the specific provision only after the unit owner has sent a written response to the initial notice via certified mail. The Petitioner admitted he did not respond to the Notices of Violations. Therefore, the HOA’s obligation to provide a specific citation was never triggered.

Alleged Violation 2: A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 & CC&Rs (Leasing and Business Use)

• Petitioner’s Claim: The HOA improperly demanded the dates of each occupant’s stay and incorrectly insisted that each occupant must stay for a minimum of 30 days. He argued that since he had a valid 30-day lease with Mr. Shepley, the occupants were simply guests.

• Governing Documents:

◦ CC&R Section 7.21: Requires all leases to be for a term of not less than 30 days.

◦ CC&R Section 7.3: Prohibits any “gainful occupation, profession, trade or other nonresidential use” in a unit if “the business activity does not involve persons coming to the Unit.”

• Judge’s Conclusion: The Judge rejected the Petitioner’s “guest” argument. The arrangement was determined to be a form of subletting for a business.

◦ The variable pricing structure, where the camp fee changed based on the number of people in a unit, demonstrated that accommodation was being sold, not merely provided to guests.

◦ Mr. Shepley was operating a business from the units in a manner that required people (his clients) to come to the unit, a direct violation of CC&R Section 7.3.

◦ The Judge noted the situation fell “between the cracks of the specific language of the statutes,” but concluded that “the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.”

Alleged Violation 3: A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) (Improper Fees)

• Petitioner’s Claim: The $250 charge from the HOA’s counsel constituted an illegal fee, penalty, or assessment. The HOA’s policy allows for a $300 fine for lease violations.

• Judge’s Conclusion: The Judge found no violation. The evidence showed that the HOA had not actually assessed the $300 fine. The $250 charge was “clearly for attorney fees related to the possible collection of assessments.” The Judge stated that “Nothing in the cited statute or the CC&Rs prohibits such a charge being implemented.”

——————————————————————————–

Final Order

Based on the failure of the Petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated any statutes or its CC&Rs, the Judge issued a final order:

“IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed.”

The decision is binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.


George E Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918013-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-12-17
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner George E Lord Counsel —
Respondent The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association Counsel Maria Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, and CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, or the association's CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of any statute or covenant alleged. The core findings supported the HOA's position that the lessee was engaging in prohibited business activity and subletting, and that the charged attorney fees were permissible.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations concerning notice procedures, leasing restrictions, prohibited business use, and excessive fees.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 by failing to include proper citations in violation notices, violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 and CC&Rs by imposing illegal restrictions on occupancy dates and prohibiting tenant guests, and violated fee limits under A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) by charging $250 in attorney fees.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Section 7.21
  • CC&Rs Section 7.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, HOA dispute, leasing restrictions, short-term rental, business use, notice procedure, attorney fees
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Section 7.21
  • CC&Rs Section 7.3

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677039.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:07:17 (115.9 KB)

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:07:18 (47.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918013-REL


Briefing: Administrative Law Judge Decision in Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 19F-H1918013-REL, a dispute between unit owner George E. Lord (Petitioner) and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated multiple Arizona statutes and its own governing documents by suspending amenity access and levying fees related to a complex leasing arrangement. The Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in its entirety, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove any violations. The central issue revolved around the Petitioner’s tenant, Barrie Shepley, who leased three units to house clients for his commercial fitness camps. The Judge concluded this arrangement constituted a prohibited business use and a form of subletting, justifying the Association’s enforcement actions, including the suspension of amenities. The ruling affirmed the Association’s right to regulate occupancy to prevent an “itinerant population” and upheld its procedural actions regarding violation notices and the charging of attorney’s fees.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

This matter was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings to resolve a dispute between a condominium unit owner and the homeowners association (HOA) regarding alleged violations of leasing policies and state law.

Case Number

19F-H1918013-REL

Petitioner

George E. Lord

Respondent

The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Hearing Date

November 26, 2018

Decision Date

December 17, 2018

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Procedural Background

1. On August 31, 2018, George Lord filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that The Boulders HOA had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, and the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

2. The Respondent filed an answer on September 25, 2018, denying all allegations.

3. A hearing was conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings on November 26, 2018, where both parties presented evidence and arguments.

——————————————————————————–

Core Dispute and Factual Background

The dispute originated from leases for three condominium units owned by the Petitioner. The central conflict was whether the occupants were legitimate guests of a primary lessee or participants in a short-term rental business that violated the community’s governing documents.

The Leasing Arrangement

• Lessee: The Petitioner, George Lord, leased two units to Barrie Shepley on December 4, 2017, for a term of March 7, 2018, to April 30, 2018. A third lease was transferred to a unit owned by the Petitioner on January 15, 2018.

• Lessee’s Business: Mr. Shepley operated a Canadian fitness business named “Personal Best,” which offered training camps in the Tucson area.

• Use of Units: The leased units at The Boulders were used to provide accommodations for clients attending six fitness camps scheduled between March 8 and April 29, 2018.

• Pricing Structure: The cost of the camp varied based on the living arrangements. The price per person decreased as more campers shared a single condo:

◦ Four campers per condo: $950.00 each

◦ Three campers per condo: $1,075.00 each

◦ Two campers per condo: $1,299.00 each

• It was noted that no fitness instruction was scheduled to occur on The Boulders’ property.

HOA Intervention and Consequences

• Initial Action: On March 9, 2018, The Boulders’ Community Manager, Danielle Morris, emailed the Petitioner expressing concern that Mr. Shepley was “subleasing your units out to different people in violation of the CC&R’s” for terms less than the 30-day minimum. The HOA deactivated the amenity access cards for all three units.

• Escalation: After email exchanges where the Petitioner argued the occupants were merely “guests,” the HOA maintained that it required the names of all occupants and proof of a minimum 30-day stay for each.

• Notices of Violation: On March 18, 2018, the Petitioner received formal Notices of Violations for the three units. The notices stated that amenity access was suspended because the HOA had not been provided “the names of the adult occupants residing in the unit or the timeframes of the occupant’s stay.” The notice warned that a $300 fine could be applied.

• Legal Fees: On March 22, 2018, the Petitioner received a letter from the Respondent’s counsel asserting the HOA’s legal position and stating that $250.00 in attorney’s fees had already been incurred and were due from the Petitioner.

• Financial Loss: On April 2, 2018, Mr. Shepley canceled the remainder of the leases due to the lack of amenity access for his clients. The Petitioner claimed a resulting loss of $6,900.00 in rental income for April 2018.

——————————————————————————–

Judicial Findings and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge analyzed three distinct allegations made by the Petitioner and found that he failed to meet the burden of proof for any of them. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

Alleged Violation 1: A.R.S. § 33-1242 (Adequacy of Violation Notice)

• Petitioner’s Claim: The HOA violated the statute because its initial Notices of Violations failed to cite the specific provision of the governing documents that had allegedly been violated.

• Judge’s Conclusion: The Judge found no violation. A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) requires an association to provide the specific provision only after the unit owner has sent a written response to the initial notice via certified mail. The Petitioner admitted he did not respond to the Notices of Violations. Therefore, the HOA’s obligation to provide a specific citation was never triggered.

Alleged Violation 2: A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 & CC&Rs (Leasing and Business Use)

• Petitioner’s Claim: The HOA improperly demanded the dates of each occupant’s stay and incorrectly insisted that each occupant must stay for a minimum of 30 days. He argued that since he had a valid 30-day lease with Mr. Shepley, the occupants were simply guests.

• Governing Documents:

◦ CC&R Section 7.21: Requires all leases to be for a term of not less than 30 days.

◦ CC&R Section 7.3: Prohibits any “gainful occupation, profession, trade or other nonresidential use” in a unit if “the business activity does not involve persons coming to the Unit.”

• Judge’s Conclusion: The Judge rejected the Petitioner’s “guest” argument. The arrangement was determined to be a form of subletting for a business.

◦ The variable pricing structure, where the camp fee changed based on the number of people in a unit, demonstrated that accommodation was being sold, not merely provided to guests.

◦ Mr. Shepley was operating a business from the units in a manner that required people (his clients) to come to the unit, a direct violation of CC&R Section 7.3.

◦ The Judge noted the situation fell “between the cracks of the specific language of the statutes,” but concluded that “the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.”

Alleged Violation 3: A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) (Improper Fees)

• Petitioner’s Claim: The $250 charge from the HOA’s counsel constituted an illegal fee, penalty, or assessment. The HOA’s policy allows for a $300 fine for lease violations.

• Judge’s Conclusion: The Judge found no violation. The evidence showed that the HOA had not actually assessed the $300 fine. The $250 charge was “clearly for attorney fees related to the possible collection of assessments.” The Judge stated that “Nothing in the cited statute or the CC&Rs prohibits such a charge being implemented.”

——————————————————————————–

Final Order

Based on the failure of the Petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated any statutes or its CC&Rs, the Judge issued a final order:

“IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed.”

The decision is binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.


Thomas P. Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817022-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-09-25
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas P. Satterlee Counsel —
Respondent Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owner's Association Counsel James A. Robles

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition with prejudice, concluding that the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Respondent HOA did not meet the definition of a 'planned community' under A.R.S. § 33-1802(4).

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to convince the ALJ that 'roadway,' as used in the governing statute, encompassed the entire 'right-of-way' or the landscaping maintained by the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Respondent is a 'planned community' subject to ADRE jurisdiction based on having a covenant to maintain 'roadways.'

The Petitioner claimed the HOA was a 'planned community' because it maintained landscaping at the entrance, arguing this constituted maintaining 'roadways' under A.R.S. § 33-1802(4). The ALJ found that 'roadways' refers to the part of the road intended for vehicle travel, not surrounding landscaping, thus finding the Respondent was not a planned community and dismissing the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Ariz. Bd. of Regents for & on Behalf of Univ. of Ariz. v. State ex rel. State of Ariz. Pub. Safety Ret. Fund Manager Adm’r, 160 Ariz. 150, 156 (App. 1989)
  • Swichtenberg v. Jack Brimer, 171 Ariz. 77, 828 P.2d 1218 (App. 1991)
  • Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 227 Ariz. 91, 95 (App. 2011)
  • Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp., 179 Ariz. 557, 561 (App. 1993)
  • Sunrise Desert Vistas v. Salas, 1 CA-CV 14-052 (Ct. App. 2016)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, planned community definition, A.R.S. 33-1802, roadway definition, HOA dispute
Additional Citations:

  • Ariz. Bd. of Regents for & on Behalf of Univ. of Ariz. v. State ex rel. State of Ariz. Pub. Safety Ret. Fund Manager Adm’r, 160 Ariz. 150, 156 (App. 1989)
  • Swichtenberg v. Jack Brimer, 171 Ariz. 77, 828 P.2d 1218 (App. 1991)
  • Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 227 Ariz. 91, 95 (App. 2011)
  • Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp., 179 Ariz. 557, 561 (App. 1993)
  • Sunrise Desert Vistas v. Salas, 1 CA-CV 14-052 (Ct. App. 2016)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817022-REL-RHG Decision – 661827.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:22 (130.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817022-REL-RHG


Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Satterlee v. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA

Executive Summary

This document outlines the findings and decision in case number 18F-H1817022-REL-RHG, where a petition brought by Thomas P. Satterlee against the Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owner’s Association was dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

The central issue was whether the Respondent association qualified as a “planned community” under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1802(4). This determination hinged entirely on the interpretation of the statutory term “roadways.” The Petitioner argued that the association’s maintenance of landscaping at the community’s entrance constituted a “covenant to maintain roadways,” asserting that “roadway” should be interpreted broadly to mean the entire right-of-way, consistent with the modern civil engineering concept of “Complete Streets.”

The Administrative Law Judge rejected this broad interpretation, concluding that the plain meaning of “roadway” refers specifically to the part of a road used for vehicle travel. The decision was based on multiple dictionary definitions and the finding that several of the Petitioner’s own evidentiary documents contradicted his argument by making clear distinctions between a “roadway” and adjacent areas like landscaping or the broader “right-of-way.” Because the association’s maintenance activities did not involve “roadways” under this definition, it was ruled not to be a “planned community,” thereby stripping the administrative bodies of jurisdiction.

I. Case Background and Procedural History

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Thomas P. Satterlee

◦ Respondent: Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owner’s Association

• Initial Action: On January 26, 2018, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the OAH lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the association was not a “planned community” as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802(4).

• First Ruling: On March 15, 2018, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision agreeing with the Respondent, finding the association was not a “planned community” and that the OAH and the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction.

• Rehearing: The Petitioner filed a Rehearing Request on April 10, 2018. The request was granted on May 3, 2018, leading to new oral arguments on the dispositive issue of jurisdiction on September 5, 2018.

• Final Decision: This briefing concerns the final Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on September 25, 2018, following the rehearing.

II. Central Legal Question: The Definition of a “Planned Community”

The jurisdiction of the OAH in this matter was entirely dependent on whether the Respondent met the statutory definition of a “planned community.”

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1802(4) defines a “planned community” as:

• Statutory Amendment: The Respondent noted that the statute was amended in 2014 to add the clauses regarding an “easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways.” Before this amendment, an association had to own real property to be considered a planned community.

III. Summary of Arguments

The dispute centered on the interpretation of a single word—”roadways”—within the statute.

Aspect of Argument

Petitioner (Thomas P. Satterlee)

Respondent (Property Owner’s Association)

Core Claim

The association’s maintenance of landscaping around the community entrance sign constitutes a “covenant to maintain roadways.”

Maintaining entrance landscaping does not constitute maintaining a “roadway.”

Interpretation of “Roadway”

“Roadway” should be interpreted broadly to mean the entire “right-of-way” or “roadway system,” including landscaping, sidewalks, etc.

“Roadway” has a narrow, plain-language meaning: the part of a road intended for vehicle traffic.

Primary Justification

The modern civil engineering concept of “Complete Streets,” which encompasses the entire right-of-way for all users. The term “roadway” is the new word for “street.”

The Arizona legislature’s deliberate choice of the specific term “roadway” in the 2014 amendment, despite the “Complete Streets” concept being well-known at the time.

Evidence Presented

– A letter from Pima County Transportation confirming the association’s maintenance of the landscaping.
– Numerous documents explaining the “Complete Streets” concept from sources like the USDOT and the Federal Highway Administration.
– Excerpts from the Pima County Roadway Design Manual (RDM) and county ordinances.

The language of the statute itself and the principle of statutory interpretation based on plain meaning.

IV. The Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Decision

The ALJ’s decision methodically dismantled the Petitioner’s argument by adhering to fundamental principles of statutory construction.

The ALJ found the Petitioner’s extensive evidence regarding the “Complete Streets” approach to be irrelevant to the legal question of statutory interpretation. The decision stated:

“Had the legislature intended to include associations such as Respondent in the definition of ‘planned community’ in A.R.S. § 33-1802(4), it could have used the term ‘right-of-way’ or ‘Complete Streets’.”

The judge reasoned that the legislature’s choice to use the specific term “roadway” when broader terms were available was intentional and must be respected. The fact that the Petitioner needed a “stack of documents” to argue his interpretation demonstrated that it was not based on the plain meaning of the word.

The decision centered on the plain, common-sense meaning of the word “roadway.”

• Dictionary Definitions: The ALJ consulted six different dictionaries (including Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Dictionary.com), all of which provided definitions consistent with the finding that a “roadway” is “the part of a road intended for vehicles” or “the part of the road on which vehicles drive.”

• Distinction from “Street”: While some definitions of “street” included references to adjacent sidewalks, the decision notes these are described as bordering the street, not being part of it, much like buildings are not considered part of the street they line.

The ALJ highlighted that several documents submitted by the Petitioner undermined his central claim that “roadway” and “right-of-way” are synonymous.

• Pima County Ordinance 10.56.020: This ordinance defines minor projects to include “[c]hanges or improvements to the right-of-way area outside the shoulder of an existing roadway.” The ALJ found this language explicitly proves the two terms refer to different areas.

• Pima County Policy Number 54.1: A diagram in this policy document was titled “Landscape Improvements in Pima County Right-of-Way,” not “Roadway.”

• Pima County RDM: The RDM specified different drawing scales for “Roadway Plans” and “Landscape Plans,” and stated that “installation of landscaping” begins after the completion of the “roadway project,” again treating them as distinct components.

V. Final Order

Based on the analysis, the Administrative Law Judge reached a definitive conclusion:

1. Conclusion of Law: The term “roadways” in A.R.S. § 33-1802(4) means the portion of a road upon which vehicles travel. The Respondent’s maintenance of landscaping does not constitute maintenance of “roadways.”

2. Jurisdictional Finding: Because the Respondent does not have a covenant to maintain roadways, it is not a “planned community” as defined by the statute.

3. Order: The Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate lack subject matter jurisdiction over the petition. The Petitioner’s petition was dismissed with prejudice on September 25, 2018.

4. Further Action: The decision noted that the Petitioner remains free to file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction as specified by the community’s documents. The decision is binding, and any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days.