Tag Archives: HOA

Daniel B Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

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 Decision – 936420.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:29 (52.8 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936523.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:29 (6.7 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 942810.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:30 (53.5 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 954077.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:30 (66.4 KB)

Arthur Fisenko & Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko v. Bellvue Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121046-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arthur Fisenko & Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko Counsel Laurence Stevens, Esq.
Respondent Bellvue Homeowners Association Counsel Jamie B. Palfai, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) and CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition, finding that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Association violated state statute or community documents. The Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) refusal to approve the wall modification request was deemed reasonable because Petitioners failed to provide the supplemental information requested by the ARC.

Why this result: The record did not establish violation(s) of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2 by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners did not provide sufficient and/or requisite information necessary for the ARC to make a reasonably objective determination, nor did they attempt to cure the deficient application.

Key Issues & Findings

Arbitrary and capricious denial of architectural request to move garage-side yard block wall and install a double-wide gate.

Petitioners alleged the Association (ARC) arbitrarily and capriciously rejected their request to move their garage-side yard wall eight (8) feet forward on their property, using the same materials as the existing wall, except replacing the single-wide gate with a double-wide gate previously approved by Respondent.

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Request, Block Wall, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), A.R.S. 33-1817
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2
  • 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
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121046-REL Decision – 912007.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:04 (138.0 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 none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petitioner's complaint, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) because the action was taken without a meeting via unanimous written consent as authorized by A.R.S. § 10-3821.

Why this result: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred, as the board acted without holding a formal meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of open meeting law by taking action via unanimous written consent

Petitioner alleged that the Board of Directors violated the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) on May 3, 2020, by taking two actions using unanimous written consent of the Board members, which the Respondent claimed was permissible under A.R.S. § 10-3821 as action without a meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meeting Law, Unanimous Written Consent, Rehearing, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.08
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3701(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3071

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121051-REL Decision – 930803.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:15 (46.9 KB)

21F-H2121051-REL Decision – 935756.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:15 (124.8 KB)

Gregory L Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-06-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory L. Smith Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Bridge Community Association Counsel Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811
CC&R Article 11.3.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the A.R.S. § 33-1811 violation because the statute was interpreted by the Tribunal to require the action to involve compensation.

Key Issues & Findings

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 because the HOA President failed to disclose a conflict of interest during the approval of his own flagpole. The Tribunal found the statute requires the decision to involve compensation, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petition denied as to a violation of A.R.S. 33-1811. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Failure to Negotiate Claim Resolution in Good Faith

Petitioner claimed Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate a resolution in good faith after he filed a claim notice. Mountain Bridge failed to communicate until approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. The Tribunal found Respondent failed to negotiate in good faith.

Orders: Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party as to his claim of an Article 11 violation. Respondent must reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 11.3.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Conflict of Interest, Failure to Negotiate, Flagpole, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:47 (121.4 KB)

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article X, Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent acted in compliance with the CC&R’s regarding the handling of the architectural request, specifically Section 10.3 concerning submission and review of plans. Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof of a violation, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden to establish a violation of Article X of the CC&R’s. The request was deemed denied per the terms of Section 10.3 when the Board took longer than 30 days to respond, and Petitioner failed to follow the subsequent requirement to formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request to place a patio shade structure and alleged violation of response time requirements

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R’s Article X by denying his patio shade request and failing to provide a written response within the 30-day period required by Section 10.3. Respondent argued the shade counted as another structure, the request was properly deemed denied after 30 days, and Petitioner failed to follow the appeal procedures by requesting a meeting.

Orders: Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed; Respondent is the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, 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)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R’s Article X
  • CC&R’s Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Architectural Review, Patio Shade, Rehearing, Deemed Denied
Additional Citations:

  • 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)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • 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-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:11:00 (118.9 KB)

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article X, Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent acted in compliance with the CC&R’s regarding the handling of the architectural request, specifically Section 10.3 concerning submission and review of plans. Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof of a violation, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden to establish a violation of Article X of the CC&R’s. The request was deemed denied per the terms of Section 10.3 when the Board took longer than 30 days to respond, and Petitioner failed to follow the subsequent requirement to formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request to place a patio shade structure and alleged violation of response time requirements

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R’s Article X by denying his patio shade request and failing to provide a written response within the 30-day period required by Section 10.3. Respondent argued the shade counted as another structure, the request was properly deemed denied after 30 days, and Petitioner failed to follow the appeal procedures by requesting a meeting.

Orders: Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed; Respondent is the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, 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)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R’s Article X
  • CC&R’s Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Architectural Review, Patio Shade, Rehearing, Deemed Denied
Additional Citations:

  • 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)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • 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-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:51 (118.9 KB)

Werner A Reis v. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Werner A. Reis Counsel —
Respondent Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Counsel Edward O’Brien and Mark Sall

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's request to find the Association in violation of CC&Rs Article III section 1 was denied because Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The Association Board acted within its authority to maintain and improve Common Areas (painting pickleball lines on one tennis court), and this action did not violate Petitioner's easement or enjoyment rights.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated the CC&Rs. The material facts showed the Board was authorized to manage and maintain the Common Areas, and access to tennis play was not denied, as one court remained available at all times.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1.

Petitioner alleged the Association infringed upon the easement rights of members by painting pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts, arguing this restricted tennis play and constituted an impediment of enjoyment rights.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied, and the February 24, 2020, ALJ Decision, restated herein, is the FINAL ORDER.

Filing fee: $0.00, 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. § 33-1243
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Common Area, Recreational Facilities, Tennis Court, Pickleball, Easement Rights
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019026-REL-RHG Decision – 792741.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:10:36 (47.0 KB)

20F-H2019026-REL-RHG Decision – 806920.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:10:36 (175.9 KB)

Werner A Reis v. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Werner A. Reis Counsel —
Respondent Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Counsel Edward O’Brien and Mark Sall

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's request to find the Association in violation of CC&Rs Article III section 1 was denied because Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The Association Board acted within its authority to maintain and improve Common Areas (painting pickleball lines on one tennis court), and this action did not violate Petitioner's easement or enjoyment rights.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated the CC&Rs. The material facts showed the Board was authorized to manage and maintain the Common Areas, and access to tennis play was not denied, as one court remained available at all times.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1.

Petitioner alleged the Association infringed upon the easement rights of members by painting pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts, arguing this restricted tennis play and constituted an impediment of enjoyment rights.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied, and the February 24, 2020, ALJ Decision, restated herein, is the FINAL ORDER.

Filing fee: $0.00, 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. § 33-1243
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Common Area, Recreational Facilities, Tennis Court, Pickleball, Easement Rights
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019026-REL-RHG Decision – 792741.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:43 (47.0 KB)

20F-H2019026-REL-RHG Decision – 806920.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:43 (175.9 KB)

Will Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Will Schreiber Counsel Aaron M. Green
Respondent Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 12.3; Design Guidelines Sections HH & E

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated its community documents when denying retroactive approval for the glass view fence, and found the HOA's denial to be reasonable.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval to change his existing fence pursuant to the Design Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA denial of retroactive glass view fence approval

Petitioner installed a glass viewing fence without prior approval and subsequently sought retroactive approval, which the HOA denied. Petitioner argued the denial was unreasonable. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to follow proper procedures to seek approval for the fence change and failed to show the HOA violated its governing documents, finding the HOA's denial reasonable.

Orders: Petitioner Will Schreiber's Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • 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.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • CC&R Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH
  • Design Guidelines Section E
  • Design Guidelines Section GG

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, View Fence, Architectural Change, Retroactive Approval, Design Guidelines, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • 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.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • CC&R Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH
  • Design Guidelines Section E
  • Design Guidelines Section GG

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 769789.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:30 (42.2 KB)

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 775433.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:30 (123.4 KB)

Will Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Will Schreiber Counsel Aaron M. Green
Respondent Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 12.3; Design Guidelines Sections HH & E

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated its community documents when denying retroactive approval for the glass view fence, and found the HOA's denial to be reasonable.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval to change his existing fence pursuant to the Design Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA denial of retroactive glass view fence approval

Petitioner installed a glass viewing fence without prior approval and subsequently sought retroactive approval, which the HOA denied. Petitioner argued the denial was unreasonable. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to follow proper procedures to seek approval for the fence change and failed to show the HOA violated its governing documents, finding the HOA's denial reasonable.

Orders: Petitioner Will Schreiber's Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • 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.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • CC&R Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH
  • Design Guidelines Section E
  • Design Guidelines Section GG

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, View Fence, Architectural Change, Retroactive Approval, Design Guidelines, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • 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.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • CC&R Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH
  • Design Guidelines Section E
  • Design Guidelines Section GG

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 769789.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:09:54 (42.2 KB)

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 775433.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:09:55 (123.4 KB)