Tag Archives: HOA

Asmaa Kadhum v. Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Asmaa Kadhum Counsel —
Respondent Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1256

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that since the lien central to the Petitioner's complaint (A.R.S. § 33-1256) had been released and no enforcement action was pending, there was no issue for the OAH to decide regarding the reasonableness of the remaining outstanding legal fees.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the underlying lien had been released and no enforcement action was being pursued by the Respondent against the property.

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees

Petitioner alleged Respondent (HOA) violated A.R.S. § 33-1256 by charging unreasonable collection fees and legal fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) related to a lien placed (June 15, 2020) and later released (November 13, 2020). Petitioner argued the fees were invalid as the underlying lien was improper and subsequently released. The ALJ found no violation because there was no recorded lien or pending enforcement action at the time of the petition (January 2022) or rehearing, thus removing the issue from the OAH's purview under the cited statute.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.R.S. § 33-420
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, lien, collection fees, attorney fees, released lien, rehearing, ARS 33-1256
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.R.S. § 33-420
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:46 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:46 (37.4 KB)

Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Kim. M. Grill

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222039-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-03
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel Augustus H. Shaw, IV
Respondent Kim M. Grill Counsel Lawrence J. Felder

Alleged Violations

Article 2, Section 2.11 of the Restatement of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA failed to prove the homeowner violated the CC&Rs regarding leasing/occupancy rules, as the homeowner and her roommate's arrangement met the undefined term 'common household' required for a 'Single Family' occupancy.

Why this result: The HOA failed to meet the burden of proving that the homeowner's temporary roommate agreement constituted a violation of CC&R Article 2, Section 2.11.

Key Issues & Findings

Residential Use/Leasing Restrictions

Petitioner HOA alleged Respondent homeowner violated CC&R Article 2, Section 2.11 by entering into a roommate agreement while residing in the home, interpreting this as leasing less than the entire unit and arguing the parties did not constitute a 'Single Family' maintaining a 'common household.'

Orders: Petitioner’s petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Rental Restriction, Common Household, Single Family, Roommate, CC&R Enforcement, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 2, Section 2.11

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 1003618.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:08 (125.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 972982.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:08 (47.8 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 973826.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:08 (50.2 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 974120.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:08 (50.6 KB)

Kathy J Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222064-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-09-29
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kathy J. Green, MD Counsel —
Respondent Cross Creek Ranch Community Association Counsel Nick Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by improperly holding a closed executive session primarily focused on reviewing homeowner comments on design guidelines that did not meet the statutory exceptions for closure. The ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse the petitioner's filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of open meetings requirements regarding closed executive session.

The Respondent HOA held a closed executive session on June 9, 2022, noticed under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) (legal advice), to discuss approximately 72 homeowner comments on proposed design guideline revisions. The ALJ found that the meeting did not qualify under exceptions (A)(1) or (A)(2) as no legal advice was given and the discussion of most comments did not constitute pending or contemplated litigation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 33-1804(A)(1)
  • 33-1804(A)(2)
  • 33-1804(B)
  • 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meetings, Executive Session, Legal Advice, Contemplated Litigation, Design Guidelines
Additional Citations:

  • 33-1804
  • 33-1804(A)
  • 33-1804(A)(1)
  • 33-1804(A)(2)
  • 33-1804(F)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 1003060.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:46 (149.0 KB)

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 989940.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:46 (49.8 KB)

David G. Iadevavia v. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-29
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David G. Iadevavia Counsel —
Respondent Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Carolyn B. Goldschmidt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 2.16

Outcome Summary

The HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against Petitioner regarding his mobile observatory.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the mobile observatory was not a trailer under the plain and obvious meaning of CC&R Section 2.16, or that the HOA's enforcement constituted illegal selective enforcement.

Key Issues & Findings

Selective enforcement of CC&R Section 2.16 regarding vehicles/trailers.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced CC&R Section 2.16 (regarding parking/vehicles/trailers) against him concerning his 'mobile observatory' while failing to enforce the rule or similar rules against other homeowners (sheds).

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 868 T2 1030
  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 177 Arizona 47
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 87P381
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 207 Arizona 393
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13(1)(b),(c) (2000)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • A.R.S. 41-1092.07
  • A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-116

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Selective Enforcement, Trailer, Mobile Observatory, Parking
Additional Citations:

  • CC&R Section 2.16
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes
  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 973802.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:16 (46.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 974694.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:16 (48.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 975118.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:16 (40.9 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977059.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (52.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977202.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977294.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (6.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978417.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978990.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978991.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (42.3 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 979005.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 982403.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (55.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 993469.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (55.5 KB)

Dennis Anderson v. Tara Condominiums Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller Counsel —
Respondent Tara Condominiums Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 11

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 11. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners themselves violated Section 11 by constructing the shed without prior written approval.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&R Section 11; the construction of the shed occurred prior to seeking or obtaining architectural approval, violating Section 11.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unfair, arbitrary, and capricious rejection of Architectural Change Form based on a non-existent rule (shed must not be higher than patio wall).

Petitioners claimed the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 11 by arbitrarily denying their request to construct a shed based on an unwritten rule regarding shed height (must be 3 inches below the wall). Petitioners acknowledged they constructed the shed prior to obtaining approval.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221
  • CC&Rs Section 11

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Change, CC&R Violation, Prior Approval, Shed
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221
  • CC&Rs Section 11

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 986010.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (48.4 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991586.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (114.3 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991600.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (6.5 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 996350.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (47.3 KB)

John J Balaco v. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-21
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John J Balaco Counsel —
Respondent Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq. & Sami Farhat, Esq.

Alleged Violations

5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's claim was denied because the ALJ concluded that the alleged violation of the 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7 was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; the argument was premature as the action (substantial change in use) had not yet come to fruition.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the argument was not ripe and predicated on actions that have yet to occur.

Key Issues & Findings

Change in Use of Common Area

Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Article 6.7 by modifying renovation plans for the Activity Center's coffee bar to include the sale of alcoholic beverages (cafe wine bar) without the requisite 60% membership vote, arguing this converted common area into a restricted commercial bar.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Master Declaration, Change of Use, Common Area, Liquor License, Renovation, Ripeness, Cafe Wine Bar
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 935334.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:15 (49.3 KB)

22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 956246.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:15 (138.2 KB)

Daniel Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Assoc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-11
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel B Belt Counsel —
Respondent Beaver Valley Improvement Association Counsel Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order dismissing the Petitioner’s Petition because the Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on March 10, 2022, and thus failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing. Petitioner had previously indicated he would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Petition alleging violation

Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and thus failed to sustain the burden of proof required to establish the alleged violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed because Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and failed to sustain the burden of proof.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, failure_to_appear, dismissal, rehearing, OAH
Additional Citations:

  • 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • R2-19-119(A)
  • R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • 32-2199.02(B)
  • 12-904(A)
  • 41-1092.01
  • 41-1092.07(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121058-REL-RHG Decision – 936420.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:32 (52.8 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL-RHG Decision – 936523.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:32 (6.7 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL-RHG Decision – 942810.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:32 (53.5 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL-RHG Decision – 954077.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:32 (66.4 KB)

Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-18
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brenda C Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Mackenzie Hill, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 3.1(D)(3) of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R regarding flood illumination direction and ARC approval process.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent (RDLCA) violated CC&R 3.1(D)(3) because a neighbor installed flood lights shining onto Petitioner's property without RDLCA approval (ARC approval). The ALJ found RDLCA in violation because the lights were never approved.

Orders: RDLCA must comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was levied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Lighting, Architectural Review, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:38 (95.0 KB)

Clifford (Norm) Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John Crotty, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV STAT. section 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge Decision dismissed the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA, Saguaro Crest, did not violate the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) because the action taken via unanimous written consent was legally considered action without a meeting under A.R.S. § 10-3821.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that a 'meeting' occurred on May 3, 2020. The Board actions were validly taken without a meeting pursuant to A.R.S. § 10-3821, which supersedes the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 when action is taken by unanimous written consent.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of the open meeting law by taking two actions via unanimous written consent.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent's Board of Directors violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 on May 3, 2020, by taking two actions using unanimous written consent of the Board members, arguing this was equivalent to an informal meeting. Respondent asserted that taking action by unanimous consent, as allowed by A.R.S. § 10-3821, means no meeting actually occurred and therefore 33-1804 did not apply.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 10-3821
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 10-3701(F)
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 32-2199.02(A)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490 (2007)
  • City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. 247 Ariz. 234 (2019)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, open meeting law, written consent, statutory interpretation, planned community, board of directors
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 10-3821
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 41-1092.08
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 10-3071
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. section 10-3701
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-116(H)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490 (2007)
  • City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. 247 Ariz. 234 (2019)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121051-REL-RHG Decision – 930803.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:19 (46.9 KB)

21F-H2121051-REL-RHG Decision – 935756.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:19 (124.8 KB)

Clifford Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221010-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-09
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John T. Crotty

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by requiring the Petitioner to inspect records before providing copies and failing to comply with the 10-day statutory deadline. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to fulfill records request

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to fulfill his request for copies of records within the statutory 10-day period because the Association improperly required him to inspect the documents first. The ALJ found the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805, as the statute does not permit an HOA to mandate prior inspection before providing requested copies.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and ordered to henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(A), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Records Request, ARS 33-1805, Records Inspection, Timeliness, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(A), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221010-REL Decision – 930949.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:11 (139.0 KB)