Tag Archives: jurisdiction

David Y. Samuels v. The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H025-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-04-18
Administrative Law Judge Amy M. Haley
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David Y. Samuels Counsel —
Respondent The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association Counsel Ashley N. Turner

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The petition filed by David Y. Samuels against The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association was dismissed. The Tribunal found that Samuels lacked standing to bring the action as an individual, and the cited statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Planned Community Act), was improper for this condominium dispute.

Why this result: Petitioner lacked standing because the property was owned by Daso Properties, LLC, not by David Y. Samuels individually. Additionally, the Petitioner brought the action under the incorrect statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs planned communities, not condominiums.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation concerning late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessment payments

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 by charging unwarranted late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessments.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed because Petitioner lacked standing as an individual owner, and the cause of action was brought under the improper statute (Planned Community Act) for a condominium property.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: standing, condominium, planned community act, statutory violation, late fees, collection fees, attorney fees, jurisdiction, dismissal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)

Decision Documents

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1124651.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:26 (48.4 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1133120.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:26 (39.9 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1134423.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:26 (48.2 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139633.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:27 (55.7 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139646.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:27 (7.6 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1157271.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:27 (47.1 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1168680.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:27 (86.1 KB)

Thomas P. Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-19
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas P. Hommrich Counsel —
Respondent The Lakewood Community Association Counsel Quinten Cupps, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article lV, Section 4.2(t) of the CC&R's

Outcome Summary

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition on jurisdictional grounds.

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the petition challenged the Association’s power to act (A.R.S. § 10-3304), which requires injunctive relief in a court of law, and did not concern a violation of community documents or statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)).

Key Issues & Findings

Authority to enforce parking rule on residential public streets

Petitioner sought an order prohibiting the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets, alleging the Association breached the CC&Rs by misapplying Article IV, Section 4.2(t).

Orders: The petition was dismissed because OAH lacked jurisdiction as the case challenged the Association's power to act under A.R.S. § 10-3304, rather than alleging a violation of community documents or statute under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Parking Restrictions, Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304(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

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1057905.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:42 (71.7 KB)

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1059621.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:43 (44.2 KB)

Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony Payson Counsel —
Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Counsel Sean K. Mohnihan

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 5.4

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's alleged failure to enforce nuisance provision (CC&R Section 5.4) regarding neighbor's outdoor television.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Section 5.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • 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 at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:22 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:22 (98.4 KB)

Donald F. Molley v. Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H007-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-01-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Donald F. Molley Counsel —
Respondent Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association Counsel Sean K. Moynihan, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Declaration Section 12.B
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's entire petition was denied because the Department of Real Estate/OAH lacked statutory jurisdiction over the Association. The Association was found not to meet the statutory definitions of a condominium association or a planned community association because it does not own common areas or real property.

Why this result: OAH determined it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq., because the Respondent Association is neither a condominium association nor a planned community association (ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1202(10) and 33-1802(4)).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged use of Association funds for maintenance on private property.

Petitioner alleged that the Association used HOA funds for maintenance on private property in violation of Section 12.B of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petition denied due to lack of OAH jurisdiction.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(10)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • Declaration Section 12.B

Alleged failure to provide requested financial documents and meeting minutes.

Petitioner requested monthly bank statements and financial reports for 2022, and financial books for 2021, which Respondent allegedly failed to provide in violation of ARS § 33-1805.

Orders: Petition denied due to lack of OAH jurisdiction.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(10)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, planned_community_act, condominium_act, denial, document_request, maintenance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(10)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • Declaration Section 12.B

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1006960.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (46.0 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1008524.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (61.8 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1008675.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (8.7 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1010876.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (51.8 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1020898.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (44.8 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1027131.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:07 (146.3 KB)

Randall White v. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged interference with wildfire risk assessment

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002376.pdf

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

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002517.pdf

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

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1014952.pdf

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

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1020817.pdf

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

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1022445.pdf

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

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 Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the specific issue raised—a complaint about a recorded lien—was moot, as the lien had been released, and no current enforcement action regarding the disputed legal fees was pending.

Why this result: The ALJ determined that absent a recorded lien or pending enforcement action, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to address the reasonableness or accuracy of the disputed legal fees under the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1256).

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.

Petitioner sought to waive or adjust unreasonable collection fees and attorney fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) charged by the HOA related to a lien placed on their unit, which was later released because it was allegedly based on incorrect amounts.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA lien, Collection fees, Attorney fees, Statutory violation, Jurisdiction, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • 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 Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:44 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:44 (37.4 KB)

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 958968.pdf

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

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 962071.pdf

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

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 966017.pdf

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

Nancy Bender v. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-23
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy Bender Counsel —
Respondent Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc. Counsel Jason Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Community Bylaws 3.03

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof that the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03, as the issue regarding a special meeting was found to be unripe. Other alleged statutory violations were inapplicable.

Why this result: Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on the Bylaws violation because the condition precedent (requesting or holding a special meeting) had not occurred, rendering the issue unripe. The statutory violations cited were inapplicable to the Association.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc. violated Community Bylaws 3.03 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B), and 33-1261(D).

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03 when it drafted and posted a letter directed to Petitioner on its online platform, in response to private correspondence (a draft special meeting request) that had not yet been submitted to the Board, which Petitioner perceived as an attempt to dismantle a platform for discussion and retaliate against her.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Community Bylaws 3.03
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Planned Community, Bylaws Violation, Jurisdiction, Unripe Issue, Special Meeting, Filing Fee Paid
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
  • Community Bylaws 3.03

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121048-REL Decision – 906190.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:08 (117.4 KB)

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J Stoltenberg Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Counsel Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 14.8

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition upon rehearing, confirming the prior decision that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8 because that provision only relates to the Association's obligation to send notice, not the homeowner's methods of mailing payments. Petitioner failed to prove the violation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proving that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8, which was deemed inapplicable to the facts presented.

Key Issues & Findings

Notices

Petitioner started mailing monthly assessment payments via restricted delivery for board member Rhea Carlisle's pickup, deviating from the established HOA mailing address, resulting in delayed/returned payments and late fees. Petitioner sought an order compelling the Association to abide by CC&Rs 14.8 and statutes, and sought a civil penalty. The core issue determined was whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs 14.8
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-801
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Assessment payments, CC&Rs, Notice provision, Jurisdiction, Statutory Agent, Restricted delivery
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • 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
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-801
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020049-REL-RHG Decision – 861466.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:11:35 (145.6 KB)

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J Stoltenberg Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Counsel Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 14.8

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition upon rehearing, confirming the prior decision that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8 because that provision only relates to the Association's obligation to send notice, not the homeowner's methods of mailing payments. Petitioner failed to prove the violation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proving that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8, which was deemed inapplicable to the facts presented.

Key Issues & Findings

Notices

Petitioner started mailing monthly assessment payments via restricted delivery for board member Rhea Carlisle's pickup, deviating from the established HOA mailing address, resulting in delayed/returned payments and late fees. Petitioner sought an order compelling the Association to abide by CC&Rs 14.8 and statutes, and sought a civil penalty. The core issue determined was whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs 14.8
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-801
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Assessment payments, CC&Rs, Notice provision, Jurisdiction, Statutory Agent, Restricted delivery
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • 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
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-801
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020049-REL-RHG Decision – 861466.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:03 (145.6 KB)