Case Summary
| Case ID | 19F-H1919047-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2019-06-05 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Thomas Shedden |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Victor L Pattarozzi | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Estrella Vista Homeowners Association | Counsel | Andrew Apodaca, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Architectural Committee meetings of the HOA were not 'regularly scheduled' within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804, and therefore the HOA was not required to hold them open to association members.
Why this result: The petitioner failed to prove that the committee meetings met the requirement of being 'regularly scheduled' because the committee did not meet at fixed or uniform intervals, but rather considered applications as they were received.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Architectural Committee meetings are 'regularly scheduled' and thus required to be open to members.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings of its Architectural Committee (ARC). The ALJ found that because the ARC did not meet on a set schedule or at uniform intervals, it did not hold 'regularly scheduled' meetings as required by the statute, and thus was not required to be open.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
- 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)
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
- 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)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1919047-REL Decision – 713039.pdf
Administrative Law Judge Decision: Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista HOA
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919047-REL, concerning a dispute between petitioner Victor L. Pattarozzi and the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association (HOA). The central issue was whether the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings were required to be open to all association members under Arizona state law.
The petitioner argued that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 by not holding open meetings for its ARC. The HOA contended that its ARC meetings were not “regularly scheduled” and therefore were exempt from the open meeting requirement for committees under the statute.
The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ruled in favor of the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, dismissing the petition. The decision hinged on the specific interpretation of the phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The judge concluded that the ARC, which considers applications on an as-needed basis rather than at fixed, uniform intervals, does not hold “regularly scheduled” meetings. Consequently, its meetings are not required to be open to the general membership of the association.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
• Case Number: 19F-H1919047-REL
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Victor L. Pattarozzi
◦ Respondent: Estrella Vista Homeowners Association
• Presiding Judge: Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge
• Hearing Date: May 16, 2019
• Decision Date: June 5, 2019
• Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings for its Architectural Committee, also referred to as the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
II. Positions of the Parties
A. Petitioner’s Argument (Victor L. Pattarozzi)
Mr. Pattarozzi’s case was predicated on the belief that all ARC meetings should be open to HOA members. His key arguments were:
• Statutory Violation: The HOA’s practice of holding closed ARC meetings constituted a direct violation of the open meeting requirements outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804.
• Definition of “Regularly”: To support his interpretation, Mr. Pattarozzi provided dictionary definitions for “regularly” and “regular”:
◦ Regularly: (1) “in a regular manner”; (2) “on a regular basis: at regular intervals.”
◦ Regular: (1) “constituted, conducted, scheduled, or done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”; (2) “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals.”
• Procedural Solution: He suggested that the HOA could comply with the law by scheduling ARC meetings on a weekly basis and simply canceling them if no applications were pending for review.
• Policy of Openness: Mr. Pattarozzi contended that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings, as stated in subsection 33-1804(F), should be construed to require ARC meetings to be open to members.
B. Respondent’s Argument (Estrella Vista HOA)
The HOA, represented by Andrew Apodaca, Esq., with testimony from Board President Stuart Glenn, countered that its ARC meetings were not subject to the open meeting law.
• Core Defense: The respondent’s primary position was that ARC meetings are not required to be open to members because they are not “regularly scheduled” as stipulated by the statute.
III. Key Findings of Fact
The Administrative Law Judge established the following facts based on the hearing:
• ARC Composition and Schedule: The ARC consists of five members and does not meet on a set or recurring schedule. It considers applications as they are received.
• Application Volume: As of the May 16, 2019 hearing date, the ARC had received twelve applications in 2019.
• Application Processing:
◦ The HOA’s management company forwards applications to Board President Stuart Glenn.
◦ Mr. Glenn determines how each application is processed.
• “Rubber Stamp” Process: The ARC has a pre-approved “rubber stamp” process for certain requests, specifically for solar panels and repainting using a preapproved color. These requests are approved without further review.
◦ Of the twelve applications received in 2019, eight were approved via this “rubber stamp” process.
• Standard Review Process: For any application not meeting the “rubber stamp” criteria, Mr. Glenn forwards the application to the other four ARC members, who then individually “report back as to their agreement or disagreement with approving the application.”
IV. Legal Analysis and Rationale for Decision
The judge’s decision was based on a detailed interpretation of the relevant statute and legal principles.
A. Statutory Interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
The judge focused on the precise wording of subsection 33-1804(A): “all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association….”
The judge’s analysis highlighted a critical distinction made by the legislature:
• Board/Association Meetings: The word “all” mandates that every meeting of the full association membership and the board of directors must be open.
• Committee Meetings: The legislature added the qualifier “regularly scheduled,” which explicitly means that not all committee meetings must be open—only those that are regularly scheduled.
B. Defining “Regularly Scheduled”
The judge evaluated the dictionary definitions provided by Mr. Pattarozzi to determine the legislative intent behind the phrase.
• Rejected Definition: The judge dismissed the first definition of “regular” (“done in conformity with the rules”). He reasoned that since all committee meetings are presumed to be conducted according to established rules, applying this definition would make the word “regular” in the statute “redundant or trivial.”
• Accepted Definition: The judge found the second definition of “regular”—”recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals”—to be the appropriate interpretation.
• Application to the ARC: Based on this accepted definition, the judge concluded that only committee meetings scheduled on a recurring basis at uniform intervals are required to be open to members. The Estrella Vista HOA’s ARC, which meets on an as-needed basis, does not fit this definition.
C. Analysis of the Policy Statement
The judge also rejected Mr. Pattarozzi’s argument regarding the policy of openness declared in subsection 33-1804(F).
• Statutory Limitation: The judge noted that the policy subsection explicitly references only “meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors.”
• Omission of Committees: Because the policy statement does not mention committee meetings, the judge concluded that it could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.
V. Final Order and Conclusion
Based on the preceding analysis, the Administrative Law Judge reached a definitive conclusion.
• Conclusion of Law: The judge found that “Respondent’s Architectural Committee does not hold ‘regularly scheduled’ meetings within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804.”
• Final Ruling: As Mr. Pattarozzi had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the statute, his petition was ordered to be dismissed.
• Notice of Rehearing: The decision included a formal 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.