Tag Archives: statutory interpretation

Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen vs. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on June 25, 2018 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818042-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-06-25
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen	Counsel	—
Respondent	Carter Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1813

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the petitioner's request, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 by allowing the president to call a special meeting for board member recall without the required petition signed by homeowners. The HOA was ordered to reinstate the two removed board members and refund the petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Removal of board member; special meeting

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 when the president called a special meeting to recall three recently elected Board members, arguing that the statute requires a petition signed by homeowners. Respondent argued that A.R.S. § 33-1804 procedures could also be used. The ALJ ruled that A.R.S. § 33-1813, as the specific statute regarding removal, requires a petition.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is granted. Respondent shall reinstate Board members Steve Brownell and Trish Brownell and reimburse the $500.00 single-issue filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1813
• A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Board Removal, Recall Election, Statutory Interpretation, Petition Requirements

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1813
• A.R.S. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818042-REL Decision – 642530.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:50 (142.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 18F-H1818042-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute concerned the legality of a special meeting called by the HOA Board President to recall three recently elected board members. The petitioner argued this action violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1813, which requires such a recall to be initiated by a petition from homeowners. The HOA contended that the president had the authority to call the meeting under the broader powers granted in A.R.S. § 33-1804.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that when a specific statute and a general statute conflict, the specific statute controls. A.R.S. § 33-1813 specifically governs the removal of board members and mandates a homeowner petition process. Therefore, the president’s unilateral call for a recall election was improper. The judge granted the petitioner’s request, ordering the HOA to reinstate the two board members who were removed and to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

Background and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute within the Carter Ranch development, a 253-lot community in Coolidge, Arizona.

• Petitioner: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, a homeowner and member of the Carter Ranch HOA.

• Respondent: Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.

• Petition: On or about April 5, 2018, Van Dan Elzen filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. He alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 when its president, Lance Van Horne, called a special meeting to recall three newly elected board members.

• Hearing: The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing, which took place on June 20, 2018, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

The Contested Elections

The dispute originated from a contentious board election process marked by accusations of misconduct, culminating in a recall election that was later found to be procedurally invalid.

March 20, 2018 Board Election

An initial annual meeting on February 20, 2018, failed to achieve the required quorum of 26 ballots. A second meeting was scheduled for March 20, 2018, for which eight candidates ran for five open board positions.

• Allegations of Misconduct: Prior to the meeting, Community Manager Mary Chaira received reports that three candidates—Roxanne Gould, Steve Brownell, and Trish Brownell—were going door-to-door “disseminating allegedly false information about Respondent’s finances, and harvesting ballots.”

• Meeting Conduct: At the March 20 meeting, a quorum of 47 homeowners was present. Board President Lance Van Horne addressed the allegations of false information. However, homeowners who may have filled out ballots based on this information were not permitted to withdraw them. The meeting was described by Ms. Chaira as “unruly and stressful.”

The election results for the top six candidates were as follows:

Candidate

Number of Votes

Outcome

Roxanne Gould

Elected

Steve Brownell

Elected

Trish Brownell

Elected

Lance Van Horne

Elected

Steve F.

Tie for 5th position

Tie for 5th position

April 24, 2018 Recall Election

Believing the March 20 election outcome was “compromised” by the alleged dissemination of false information and ballot harvesting, President Van Horne called a special meeting for April 24, 2018, to hold a recall election for the three newly elected members: Roxanne Gould, Steve Brownell, and Trish Brownell.

A quorum of 52 homeowners returned ballots for the recall. The results were:

Board Member

Votes for Recall

Votes against Recall

Outcome

Roxanne Gould

Remained on Board

Steve Brownell

Removed from Board

Trish Brownell

Removed from Board

Following the recall, other members were elected to fill the vacant board positions.

Central Legal Issue: Statutory Interpretation

The case presented a pure legal question of statutory interpretation, as the facts of what occurred were not in dispute. The core issue was which Arizona statute governs the process for recalling an HOA board member.

Competing Legal Positions

• Petitioner’s Argument: The recall election was invalid because it violated A.R.S. § 33-1813. This statute, titled “Removal of board member; special meeting,” explicitly states that a recall process is initiated upon the board’s receipt of a petition signed by a specified number or percentage of homeowners. The president’s unilateral action did not meet this requirement.

• Respondent’s Argument: The HOA argued that A.R.S. § 33-1813 was not the exclusive procedure. It claimed that the president could also call such a meeting under the authority of A.R.S. § 33-1804, a more general statute governing meetings, which states that “Special meetings of the members’ association may be called by the president.”

Statutory Analysis by the Court

The Administrative Law Judge highlighted the direct conflict between the two statutes on the subject of board member removal.

Feature

A.R.S. § 33-1813 (Specific Statute)

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) (General Statute)

Meeting Initiation

By homeowner petition only.

By the president, a board majority, or homeowner petition.

Petition Requirement

For HOAs ≤ 1,000 members: petition signed by at least 100 members or 25% of votes, whichever is less.

Petition signed by at least 25% of votes (or lower if specified in bylaws).

Meeting Notice

Within 30 days after receipt of the petition.

Between 10 and 50 days in advance of the meeting.

The judge noted that A.R.S. § 33-1813 specifically overrides the petition requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), demonstrating legislative intent for it to be the controlling authority on this specific issue.

The Judge’s Legal Conclusion

The decision rested on the well-established legal principle that a specific statute governs over a general one when they are inconsistent. Citing case law, the judge reasoned:

“When provisions of a general statute are inconsistent with those of a special nature on the same subject, the special statute controls.”

Applying this canon of statutory construction, the judge concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1813 is the controlling authority for the removal of an HOA board member. Therefore, a valid recall process must be initiated by a homeowner petition as outlined in that statute. The president lacked the authority to call the April 24, 2018 recall meeting on his own initiative.

Final Order and Implications

Based on the legal conclusion that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1813, the Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended order with the following mandates:

1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s petition is granted.

2. Board Member Reinstatement: The Carter Ranch HOA is required to reinstate Board members Steve Brownell and Trish Brownell.

3. Fee Reimbursement: The HOA must reimburse the petitioner, Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, for his $500.00 single-issue filing fee.

This order is considered binding unless a party files a request for rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen vs. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on June 25, 2018 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818042-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-06-25
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen	Counsel	—
Respondent	Carter Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1813

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the petitioner's request, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 by allowing the president to call a special meeting for board member recall without the required petition signed by homeowners. The HOA was ordered to reinstate the two removed board members and refund the petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Removal of board member; special meeting

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 when the president called a special meeting to recall three recently elected Board members, arguing that the statute requires a petition signed by homeowners. Respondent argued that A.R.S. § 33-1804 procedures could also be used. The ALJ ruled that A.R.S. § 33-1813, as the specific statute regarding removal, requires a petition.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is granted. Respondent shall reinstate Board members Steve Brownell and Trish Brownell and reimburse the $500.00 single-issue filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1813
• A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Board Removal, Recall Election, Statutory Interpretation, Petition Requirements

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1813
• A.R.S. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818042-REL Decision – 642530.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:05:34 (142.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 18F-H1818042-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute concerned the legality of a special meeting called by the HOA Board President to recall three recently elected board members. The petitioner argued this action violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1813, which requires such a recall to be initiated by a petition from homeowners. The HOA contended that the president had the authority to call the meeting under the broader powers granted in A.R.S. § 33-1804.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that when a specific statute and a general statute conflict, the specific statute controls. A.R.S. § 33-1813 specifically governs the removal of board members and mandates a homeowner petition process. Therefore, the president’s unilateral call for a recall election was improper. The judge granted the petitioner’s request, ordering the HOA to reinstate the two board members who were removed and to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

Background and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute within the Carter Ranch development, a 253-lot community in Coolidge, Arizona.

• Petitioner: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, a homeowner and member of the Carter Ranch HOA.

• Respondent: Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.

• Petition: On or about April 5, 2018, Van Dan Elzen filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. He alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 when its president, Lance Van Horne, called a special meeting to recall three newly elected board members.

• Hearing: The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing, which took place on June 20, 2018, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

The Contested Elections

The dispute originated from a contentious board election process marked by accusations of misconduct, culminating in a recall election that was later found to be procedurally invalid.

March 20, 2018 Board Election

An initial annual meeting on February 20, 2018, failed to achieve the required quorum of 26 ballots. A second meeting was scheduled for March 20, 2018, for which eight candidates ran for five open board positions.

• Allegations of Misconduct: Prior to the meeting, Community Manager Mary Chaira received reports that three candidates—Roxanne Gould, Steve Brownell, and Trish Brownell—were going door-to-door “disseminating allegedly false information about Respondent’s finances, and harvesting ballots.”

• Meeting Conduct: At the March 20 meeting, a quorum of 47 homeowners was present. Board President Lance Van Horne addressed the allegations of false information. However, homeowners who may have filled out ballots based on this information were not permitted to withdraw them. The meeting was described by Ms. Chaira as “unruly and stressful.”

The election results for the top six candidates were as follows:

Candidate

Number of Votes

Outcome

Roxanne Gould

Elected

Steve Brownell

Elected

Trish Brownell

Elected

Lance Van Horne

Elected

Steve F.

Tie for 5th position

Tie for 5th position

April 24, 2018 Recall Election

Believing the March 20 election outcome was “compromised” by the alleged dissemination of false information and ballot harvesting, President Van Horne called a special meeting for April 24, 2018, to hold a recall election for the three newly elected members: Roxanne Gould, Steve Brownell, and Trish Brownell.

A quorum of 52 homeowners returned ballots for the recall. The results were:

Board Member

Votes for Recall

Votes against Recall

Outcome

Roxanne Gould

Remained on Board

Steve Brownell

Removed from Board

Trish Brownell

Removed from Board

Following the recall, other members were elected to fill the vacant board positions.

Central Legal Issue: Statutory Interpretation

The case presented a pure legal question of statutory interpretation, as the facts of what occurred were not in dispute. The core issue was which Arizona statute governs the process for recalling an HOA board member.

Competing Legal Positions

• Petitioner’s Argument: The recall election was invalid because it violated A.R.S. § 33-1813. This statute, titled “Removal of board member; special meeting,” explicitly states that a recall process is initiated upon the board’s receipt of a petition signed by a specified number or percentage of homeowners. The president’s unilateral action did not meet this requirement.

• Respondent’s Argument: The HOA argued that A.R.S. § 33-1813 was not the exclusive procedure. It claimed that the president could also call such a meeting under the authority of A.R.S. § 33-1804, a more general statute governing meetings, which states that “Special meetings of the members’ association may be called by the president.”

Statutory Analysis by the Court

The Administrative Law Judge highlighted the direct conflict between the two statutes on the subject of board member removal.

Feature

A.R.S. § 33-1813 (Specific Statute)

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) (General Statute)

Meeting Initiation

By homeowner petition only.

By the president, a board majority, or homeowner petition.

Petition Requirement

For HOAs ≤ 1,000 members: petition signed by at least 100 members or 25% of votes, whichever is less.

Petition signed by at least 25% of votes (or lower if specified in bylaws).

Meeting Notice

Within 30 days after receipt of the petition.

Between 10 and 50 days in advance of the meeting.

The judge noted that A.R.S. § 33-1813 specifically overrides the petition requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), demonstrating legislative intent for it to be the controlling authority on this specific issue.

The Judge’s Legal Conclusion

The decision rested on the well-established legal principle that a specific statute governs over a general one when they are inconsistent. Citing case law, the judge reasoned:

“When provisions of a general statute are inconsistent with those of a special nature on the same subject, the special statute controls.”

Applying this canon of statutory construction, the judge concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1813 is the controlling authority for the removal of an HOA board member. Therefore, a valid recall process must be initiated by a homeowner petition as outlined in that statute. The president lacked the authority to call the April 24, 2018 recall meeting on his own initiative.

Final Order and Implications

Based on the legal conclusion that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1813, the Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended order with the following mandates:

1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s petition is granted.

2. Board Member Reinstatement: The Carter Ranch HOA is required to reinstate Board members Steve Brownell and Trish Brownell.

3. Fee Reimbursement: The HOA must reimburse the petitioner, Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, for his $500.00 single-issue filing fee.

This order is considered binding unless a party files a request for rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Gary W. Moselle vs. Desert Mountain Master Association

Posted on May 10, 2018 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1817005-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-05-10
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Gary W. Moselle	Counsel	—
Respondent	Desert Mountain Master Association	Counsel	Curtis Ekmark

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804 because the committee meeting in question was not a “regularly scheduled committee meeting” required to be open to all members.

Why this result: The specific language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) only requires 'regularly scheduled committee meetings' to be open, and the committee in question did not meet at regular intervals.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the DMMA Communications Committee meeting was subject to the open meetings law.

Petitioner, a member/homeowner, alleged the HOA violated the open meetings statute by closing a September 6, 2017, committee meeting. The ALJ determined the committee did not hold 'regularly scheduled' meetings and thus was not subject to the open meetings law.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meetings Law, Committee Meetings, Statutory Interpretation, Regularly Scheduled

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1804
• A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes
• Marsoner v. Pima County

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817005-REL-RHG Decision – 634096.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:03 (106.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Moselle v. Desert Mountain Master Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817005-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowner Gary W. Moselle (Petitioner) and the Desert Mountain Master Association (DMMA/Respondent). The central issue was whether a “closed” meeting of the DMMA Communications Committee on September 6, 2017, violated Arizona’s open meetings law for planned communities, A.R.S. § 33-1804.

The case hinged on the interpretation of the phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The Petitioner argued this meant any meeting scheduled in a normal fashion, while the Respondent contended it applied only to meetings occurring at fixed, regular intervals. The Respondent provided evidence that the committee in question met infrequently and without a set schedule.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent, concluding that “regularly scheduled” refers to meetings held at regular intervals. The judge found that the specific language of the statute requiring only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings to be open superseded the statute’s general policy statement in favor of open meetings. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from a petition filed by Gary W. Moselle with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the DMMA violated state law by holding a closed committee meeting. The case progressed through an initial hearing, a decision, a successful request for a rehearing based on new evidence, and a final binding decision.

September 1, 2017

Gary W. Moselle files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

September 5, 2017

The Department issues a notice to DMMA regarding the petition.

September 6, 2017

The DMMA Communications Committee holds a closed meeting, which Moselle is not permitted to attend.

September 18, 2017

DMMA files an answer to the petition, denying all allegations.

November 17, 2017

The initial hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

December 7, 2017

The Administrative Law Judge issues an initial decision denying the petition.

January 4, 2018

Moselle files a request for a rehearing, citing newly discovered material evidence.

January 26, 2017

The Department grants the request for a rehearing.

April 20, 2018

A rehearing is conducted.

May 10, 2018

The Administrative Law Judge issues a final, binding decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

The Central Legal Question: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804

The core of the dispute was the correct interpretation of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1804(A), which governs open meetings for planned communities. The key statutory language under scrutiny was:

“…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 case required the Administrative Law Judge to define the term “regularly scheduled” in the context of homeowners’ association committee meetings.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Position (Gary W. Moselle)

The Petitioner’s case was built on a broad interpretation of the statute, emphasizing the legislative intent for transparency.

• Definition of “Regularly Scheduled”: Moselle argued that “regularly scheduled” should be interpreted to mean “scheduled in a normal fashion,” rather than strictly meaning meetings held at fixed intervals (e.g., monthly or quarterly).

• Legislative Policy: He pointed to A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which states a broad policy that “all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly.” He argued this policy statement should guide the interpretation of subsection (A) in favor of openness for all committee meetings.

• Committee Practices: In his prehearing brief, Moselle asserted that five of the six “functioning DMMA committees” meet “at the request of the chair,” implying this was the normal scheduling method and should fall under the statute.

Respondent’s Position (Desert Mountain Master Association)

The Respondent advocated for a narrower, more literal interpretation of the statute.

• Definition of “Regularly Scheduled”: DMMA argued the phrase meant meetings that “occurred at regular intervals, such as on the third Thursday of every month, quarterly, or even annually.”

• Evidence of Infrequent Meetings: DMMA presented testimony that the Communications Committee met infrequently and without a fixed interval. The committee held only four meetings in 2016 and 2017: two in April 2016, one in June 2017, and the contested meeting on September 6, 2017.

• Lack of Board Action: To support the claim that the committee was not conducting core business of the Board, DMMA asserted that a recommendation made by the committee (to send an email blast) was not acted upon by the DMMA Board of Directors.

Judicial Findings and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, denied the petition, siding with the Respondent’s interpretation of the statute. The decision was based on principles of statutory construction and the evidence presented.

1. Statutory Interpretation and Plain Language

The primary goal in construing a statute is to ascertain legislative intent by first looking at the plain language. The Judge concluded that the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) supports the interpretation that “regularly scheduled committee meetings” are those that “occur at regular intervals.” While acknowledging that the phrase could have multiple meanings, this did not preclude an interpretation based on its plain language.

2. Petitioner’s Contradictory Testimony

A key factor in the decision was the Petitioner’s own testimony during cross-examination. When asked about his assertion that five DMMA committees meet at the request of the chair, the Judge noted:

“Petitioner stated that five of the committees listed in the Volunteer Request page ‘meet at the request of the chair and they’re not regularly scheduled.'” (Hearing record 30:52 – 31:15)

The Judge found that in this statement, the Petitioner himself used the phrase “not regularly scheduled” to describe meetings that were called as needed rather than held at fixed intervals, thereby undermining his own legal argument.

3. Specific Language Overrides General Policy

The Judge addressed the Petitioner’s argument regarding the statute’s broad policy statement in favor of open meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)). The decision explicitly states:

“The general policy statement in favor of open meetings set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) does not override the specific provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) that only ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings must be open to the members.”

This conclusion establishes that the specific qualifier “regularly scheduled” in subsection (A) creates a deliberate exception to the general policy for certain committee meetings.

Final Order and Implications

Order: The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Conclusion: The Judge concluded that at the time of the September 6, 2017 meeting, the DMMA Communication Committee did not hold “regularly scheduled” meetings as defined by the statute. Therefore, the Respondent’s decision to hold a closed meeting was not a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

This decision, issued on May 10, 2018, is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date of service.

Gary W. Moselle vs. Desert Mountain Master Association

Posted on May 10, 2018 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1817005-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-05-10
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Gary W. Moselle	Counsel	—
Respondent	Desert Mountain Master Association	Counsel	Curtis Ekmark

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804 because the committee meeting in question was not a “regularly scheduled committee meeting” required to be open to all members.

Why this result: The specific language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) only requires 'regularly scheduled committee meetings' to be open, and the committee in question did not meet at regular intervals.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the DMMA Communications Committee meeting was subject to the open meetings law.

Petitioner, a member/homeowner, alleged the HOA violated the open meetings statute by closing a September 6, 2017, committee meeting. The ALJ determined the committee did not hold 'regularly scheduled' meetings and thus was not subject to the open meetings law.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meetings Law, Committee Meetings, Statutory Interpretation, Regularly Scheduled

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1804
• A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes
• Marsoner v. Pima County

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817005-REL-RHG Decision – 634096.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:03:13 (106.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Moselle v. Desert Mountain Master Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817005-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowner Gary W. Moselle (Petitioner) and the Desert Mountain Master Association (DMMA/Respondent). The central issue was whether a “closed” meeting of the DMMA Communications Committee on September 6, 2017, violated Arizona’s open meetings law for planned communities, A.R.S. § 33-1804.

The case hinged on the interpretation of the phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The Petitioner argued this meant any meeting scheduled in a normal fashion, while the Respondent contended it applied only to meetings occurring at fixed, regular intervals. The Respondent provided evidence that the committee in question met infrequently and without a set schedule.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent, concluding that “regularly scheduled” refers to meetings held at regular intervals. The judge found that the specific language of the statute requiring only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings to be open superseded the statute’s general policy statement in favor of open meetings. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from a petition filed by Gary W. Moselle with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the DMMA violated state law by holding a closed committee meeting. The case progressed through an initial hearing, a decision, a successful request for a rehearing based on new evidence, and a final binding decision.

September 1, 2017

Gary W. Moselle files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

September 5, 2017

The Department issues a notice to DMMA regarding the petition.

September 6, 2017

The DMMA Communications Committee holds a closed meeting, which Moselle is not permitted to attend.

September 18, 2017

DMMA files an answer to the petition, denying all allegations.

November 17, 2017

The initial hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

December 7, 2017

The Administrative Law Judge issues an initial decision denying the petition.

January 4, 2018

Moselle files a request for a rehearing, citing newly discovered material evidence.

January 26, 2017

The Department grants the request for a rehearing.

April 20, 2018

A rehearing is conducted.

May 10, 2018

The Administrative Law Judge issues a final, binding decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

The Central Legal Question: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804

The core of the dispute was the correct interpretation of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1804(A), which governs open meetings for planned communities. The key statutory language under scrutiny was:

“…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 case required the Administrative Law Judge to define the term “regularly scheduled” in the context of homeowners’ association committee meetings.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Position (Gary W. Moselle)

The Petitioner’s case was built on a broad interpretation of the statute, emphasizing the legislative intent for transparency.

• Definition of “Regularly Scheduled”: Moselle argued that “regularly scheduled” should be interpreted to mean “scheduled in a normal fashion,” rather than strictly meaning meetings held at fixed intervals (e.g., monthly or quarterly).

• Legislative Policy: He pointed to A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which states a broad policy that “all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly.” He argued this policy statement should guide the interpretation of subsection (A) in favor of openness for all committee meetings.

• Committee Practices: In his prehearing brief, Moselle asserted that five of the six “functioning DMMA committees” meet “at the request of the chair,” implying this was the normal scheduling method and should fall under the statute.

Respondent’s Position (Desert Mountain Master Association)

The Respondent advocated for a narrower, more literal interpretation of the statute.

• Definition of “Regularly Scheduled”: DMMA argued the phrase meant meetings that “occurred at regular intervals, such as on the third Thursday of every month, quarterly, or even annually.”

• Evidence of Infrequent Meetings: DMMA presented testimony that the Communications Committee met infrequently and without a fixed interval. The committee held only four meetings in 2016 and 2017: two in April 2016, one in June 2017, and the contested meeting on September 6, 2017.

• Lack of Board Action: To support the claim that the committee was not conducting core business of the Board, DMMA asserted that a recommendation made by the committee (to send an email blast) was not acted upon by the DMMA Board of Directors.

Judicial Findings and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, denied the petition, siding with the Respondent’s interpretation of the statute. The decision was based on principles of statutory construction and the evidence presented.

1. Statutory Interpretation and Plain Language

The primary goal in construing a statute is to ascertain legislative intent by first looking at the plain language. The Judge concluded that the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) supports the interpretation that “regularly scheduled committee meetings” are those that “occur at regular intervals.” While acknowledging that the phrase could have multiple meanings, this did not preclude an interpretation based on its plain language.

2. Petitioner’s Contradictory Testimony

A key factor in the decision was the Petitioner’s own testimony during cross-examination. When asked about his assertion that five DMMA committees meet at the request of the chair, the Judge noted:

“Petitioner stated that five of the committees listed in the Volunteer Request page ‘meet at the request of the chair and they’re not regularly scheduled.'” (Hearing record 30:52 – 31:15)

The Judge found that in this statement, the Petitioner himself used the phrase “not regularly scheduled” to describe meetings that were called as needed rather than held at fixed intervals, thereby undermining his own legal argument.

3. Specific Language Overrides General Policy

The Judge addressed the Petitioner’s argument regarding the statute’s broad policy statement in favor of open meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)). The decision explicitly states:

“The general policy statement in favor of open meetings set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) does not override the specific provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) that only ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings must be open to the members.”

This conclusion establishes that the specific qualifier “regularly scheduled” in subsection (A) creates a deliberate exception to the general policy for certain committee meetings.

Final Order and Implications

Order: The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Conclusion: The Judge concluded that at the time of the September 6, 2017 meeting, the DMMA Communication Committee did not hold “regularly scheduled” meetings as defined by the statute. Therefore, the Respondent’s decision to hold a closed meeting was not a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

This decision, issued on May 10, 2018, is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date of service.

William Travis vs. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on February 2, 2018 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1817017-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-02-02
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William Travis	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Val Vista Lakes Community Association	Counsel	Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VIII
Bylaws Article VIII; Bylaws Article IV, Section 1
ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A), (A)(1), and (A)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition, raising three issues concerning the HOA's election nominating process, was dismissed entirely. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on all issues. The ALJ found that the Nominating Committee acted within the authority granted by the Bylaws regarding deadlines and nominee selection discretion, and the relevant election statute (A.R.S. § 33-1812) was not applicable to the nomination process.

Key Issues & Findings

Nominating Committee disregarded a September 29, 2017 deadline by which parties were to submit applications to nominate themselves.

Petitioner alleged the Nominating Committee violated Article VIII by accepting applications after the September 29th administrative deadline, arguing the deadline was a 'term[], limitation[], or rule[] adopted by the Board of Directors'.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. The deadline was an administrative deadline set by management, not a rule adopted by the Board, and therefore the Committee did not violate Bylaws Article VIII by accepting applications late.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• Bylaws Article VIII

The Nominating Committee exceeded its authority by asking candidates questions that had the effect of imposing qualification requirements for the Board’s Directors that exceed those set out in the Bylaws.

Petitioner alleged that the Committee imposing questions (such as whether an applicant had filed a lawsuit against the Association) created unauthorized qualifications for the Board, violating the Bylaws.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. Bylaws Article IV Section 3 grants the Nominating Committee discretion to determine the number of nominations, and it was not unreasonable for the Committee to question applicants while exercising this explicit discretion.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• Bylaws Article VIII
• Bylaws Article IV, Section 3

By failing to include on the election-ballot members who had submitted 'self-nominations,' the Committee violated election statutes.

Petitioner asserted that because members could not vote for the four applicants the Nominating Committee did not nominate, the Committee engaged in proxy voting, violating election requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1812.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. Because Bylaws Article IV Section 3 requires nominations to be made by the Nominating Committee, nominations are not 'votes allocated to a unit' and ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812 is not applicable.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)(1)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Nominating Committee, Bylaws Enforcement, Director Qualifications, Administrative Deadline, Statutory Interpretation, Self-Nomination

Additional Citations:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
• Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
• McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817017-REL Decision – 615818.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:12 (125.4 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Travis v. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817017-REL, concerning a petition filed by William Travis against The Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The core of the dispute revolves around the actions of the Association’s Nominating Committee during the process for the November 16, 2017 Board of Directors election.

Mr. Travis raised three primary allegations: 1) the Committee violated Association Bylaws by accepting candidate applications after a stated September 29, 2017 deadline; 2) the Committee exceeded its authority by interviewing candidates, thereby imposing qualification requirements beyond those stipulated in the Bylaws; and 3) the failure to include all applicants on the ballot constituted a violation of Arizona state statutes related to proxy voting.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, dismissed Mr. Travis’s petition in its entirety. The decision found that Travis failed to prove the application deadline was a formal rule adopted by the Board, concluding it was an administrative deadline set by the management company. The Judge determined that the Committee’s actions, including interviewing applicants, were a reasonable exercise of the discretion explicitly granted to it by the Bylaws. Finally, the Judge ruled that the state statute cited by Travis applies to the casting of votes, not the internal nomination process, and was therefore inapplicable to the Committee’s actions. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Number

18F-H1817017-REL

Petitioner

William Travis

Respondent

The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Hearing Date

January 26, 2018

Decision Date

February 2, 2018

Presiding Judge

Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge

Testifying Parties

William Travis (on his own behalf); Simone McGinnis (Association’s on-site manager)

Petitioner’s Allegations

William Travis’s petition, as amended, centered on three specific issues concerning the Nominating Committee’s conduct for the November 16, 2017 Board election:

1. Violation of Application Deadline: The Committee disregarded a September 29, 2017 deadline for candidate applications. Travis contended that this deadline was a “term, limitation, or rule adopted by the Board,” and by accepting applications after this date, the Committee violated Bylaws Article VIII.

2. Exceeding Authority and Imposing Qualifications: The Committee exceeded its authority by interviewing and questioning applicants. Travis argued that this process had the effect of creating new qualification requirements for Board Directors, beyond the sole requirement of Association membership outlined in Bylaws Article IV. He asserted the Committee had no authority to ask any questions.

3. Statutory Violation of Voting Rights: By failing to place all members who submitted “self-nominations” on the official election ballot, the Committee violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A). Travis claimed this action was tantamount to proxy voting because it prevented members from voting for or against certain candidates.

Key Factual Findings

Election and Nomination Timeline

• August 17, 2017: The Board of Directors appoints Cheryl Peterson-McCoy as the Nominating Committee Chairperson.

• September 12, 2017: The Association’s management company emails residents, announcing three open Board positions and an application deadline of September 29, 2017, at 5:00 p.m.

• By September 29, 2017: Four applications are received. At this point, the members of the Nominating Committee (other than the Chairperson) have not yet been selected.

• After September 29, 2017: The Association accepts four additional applications, including one from Mr. Travis. No revised notice is sent to the membership about an extended deadline.

• October 5, 2017: Mr. Travis, then a Board member, makes an email motion to extend the application deadline to October 16, which is denied.

• October 19, 2017: The Board formally approves six members for the Nominating Committee. Mr. Travis’s subsequent motion at this meeting to extend the deadline fails for lack of a second.

Nominating Committee Actions and Rationale

• The Committee considered all eight applications submitted, including the four received after the initial deadline.

• The Committee scheduled and conducted interviews with all eight applicants.

• During interviews, applicants were asked questions including whether they had ever filed a lawsuit against the Association, were considering filing a lawsuit, or had any compliance violations.

• The Committee ultimately nominated four candidates to be placed on the ballot for the election. Of these four, two had applied by the September 29 deadline and two had applied after.

Association’s Position and Testimony

• Simone McGinnis, the Association’s on-site manager, testified that the September 29 deadline was not imposed by the Board but was an administrative deadline set by the management company to allow time for the nomination and ballot-printing process.

• The Association’s position, articulated at the November 16, 2017 Board meeting, is that the only way to get on the ballot is to be nominated by the Nominating Committee, although write-in candidates are permitted during the election.

• The Board acknowledged that it had only strictly adhered to the Bylaw requirement of using a Nominating Committee for the past two years, after thirty years of non-adherence.

• The Board’s attorney stated that the Committee members have a duty to act reasonably and that any member who disagrees with the Committee’s discretionary choices should seek to amend the bylaws.

Analysis of Governing Documents and Statutes

The judge’s decision rested on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s Bylaws and relevant Arizona state law.

Document/Statute

Relevant Provision

Application in this Case

Bylaws Article IV, Section 3

“Nominations for election to the Board of Directors shall be made by a Nominating Committee… The Nominating Committee shall make as many nominations… as it shall in its discretion determine…”

This article grants the Committee explicit discretion to select nominees. It does not provide for “self-nomination” or require the Committee to nominate all applicants.

Bylaws Article VIII

“no committee may take action which exceeds its responsibilities. Each committee shall operate in accordance with any terms, limitations, or rules adopted by the Board.”

Mr. Travis argued the deadline was a “rule adopted by the Board.” The court found no evidence to support this, concluding it was an administrative deadline.

Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

States that Board Directors must be members of the Association. It lists no other qualifications.

Mr. Travis argued that questioning candidates imposed extra qualifications. The court found this was part of the Committee’s discretionary selection process, not the imposition of new formal requirements.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Prohibits proxy voting and requires that ballots set forth each proposed action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against it.

The court determined this statute applies to “votes allocated to a unit” (i.e., the member’s vote) and not the nomination process itself, which is governed by the Bylaws.

Conclusions of Law and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge made the following conclusions based on a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Deadline was Administrative: There was no substantial evidence showing the September 29, 2017 deadline was a formal rule adopted by the Board. Therefore, the Nominating Committee did not violate Bylaws Article VIII by accepting applications after this date.

2. Committee Acted Within its Discretion: The plain language of Bylaws Article IV, Section 3 requires nominations to be made by the Committee and grants it discretion. The concept of “self-nomination” is not supported by the Bylaws. It was not unreasonable for the Committee to question applicants as part of exercising its explicit discretion to select nominees.

3. State Voting Statute Not Applicable: The nomination process, as dictated by the Bylaws, is separate from the act of voting. Since ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812 governs “votes allocated to a unit,” it is not applicable to the Committee’s function of selecting nominees.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner William Travis’s petition is dismissed.

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

William Travis vs. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on February 2, 2018 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1817017-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-02-02
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William Travis	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Val Vista Lakes Community Association	Counsel	Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VIII
Bylaws Article VIII; Bylaws Article IV, Section 1
ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A), (A)(1), and (A)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition, raising three issues concerning the HOA's election nominating process, was dismissed entirely. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on all issues. The ALJ found that the Nominating Committee acted within the authority granted by the Bylaws regarding deadlines and nominee selection discretion, and the relevant election statute (A.R.S. § 33-1812) was not applicable to the nomination process.

Key Issues & Findings

Nominating Committee disregarded a September 29, 2017 deadline by which parties were to submit applications to nominate themselves.

Petitioner alleged the Nominating Committee violated Article VIII by accepting applications after the September 29th administrative deadline, arguing the deadline was a 'term[], limitation[], or rule[] adopted by the Board of Directors'.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. The deadline was an administrative deadline set by management, not a rule adopted by the Board, and therefore the Committee did not violate Bylaws Article VIII by accepting applications late.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• Bylaws Article VIII

The Nominating Committee exceeded its authority by asking candidates questions that had the effect of imposing qualification requirements for the Board’s Directors that exceed those set out in the Bylaws.

Petitioner alleged that the Committee imposing questions (such as whether an applicant had filed a lawsuit against the Association) created unauthorized qualifications for the Board, violating the Bylaws.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. Bylaws Article IV Section 3 grants the Nominating Committee discretion to determine the number of nominations, and it was not unreasonable for the Committee to question applicants while exercising this explicit discretion.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• Bylaws Article VIII
• Bylaws Article IV, Section 3

By failing to include on the election-ballot members who had submitted 'self-nominations,' the Committee violated election statutes.

Petitioner asserted that because members could not vote for the four applicants the Nominating Committee did not nominate, the Committee engaged in proxy voting, violating election requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1812.

Orders: The claim was dismissed. Because Bylaws Article IV Section 3 requires nominations to be made by the Nominating Committee, nominations are not 'votes allocated to a unit' and ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812 is not applicable.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)(1)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1812(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Nominating Committee, Bylaws Enforcement, Director Qualifications, Administrative Deadline, Statutory Interpretation, Self-Nomination

Additional Citations:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
• Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
• McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1812

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817017-REL Decision – 615818.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:03:35 (125.4 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Travis v. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817017-REL, concerning a petition filed by William Travis against The Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The core of the dispute revolves around the actions of the Association’s Nominating Committee during the process for the November 16, 2017 Board of Directors election.

Mr. Travis raised three primary allegations: 1) the Committee violated Association Bylaws by accepting candidate applications after a stated September 29, 2017 deadline; 2) the Committee exceeded its authority by interviewing candidates, thereby imposing qualification requirements beyond those stipulated in the Bylaws; and 3) the failure to include all applicants on the ballot constituted a violation of Arizona state statutes related to proxy voting.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, dismissed Mr. Travis’s petition in its entirety. The decision found that Travis failed to prove the application deadline was a formal rule adopted by the Board, concluding it was an administrative deadline set by the management company. The Judge determined that the Committee’s actions, including interviewing applicants, were a reasonable exercise of the discretion explicitly granted to it by the Bylaws. Finally, the Judge ruled that the state statute cited by Travis applies to the casting of votes, not the internal nomination process, and was therefore inapplicable to the Committee’s actions. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Number

18F-H1817017-REL

Petitioner

William Travis

Respondent

The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Hearing Date

January 26, 2018

Decision Date

February 2, 2018

Presiding Judge

Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge

Testifying Parties

William Travis (on his own behalf); Simone McGinnis (Association’s on-site manager)

Petitioner’s Allegations

William Travis’s petition, as amended, centered on three specific issues concerning the Nominating Committee’s conduct for the November 16, 2017 Board election:

1. Violation of Application Deadline: The Committee disregarded a September 29, 2017 deadline for candidate applications. Travis contended that this deadline was a “term, limitation, or rule adopted by the Board,” and by accepting applications after this date, the Committee violated Bylaws Article VIII.

2. Exceeding Authority and Imposing Qualifications: The Committee exceeded its authority by interviewing and questioning applicants. Travis argued that this process had the effect of creating new qualification requirements for Board Directors, beyond the sole requirement of Association membership outlined in Bylaws Article IV. He asserted the Committee had no authority to ask any questions.

3. Statutory Violation of Voting Rights: By failing to place all members who submitted “self-nominations” on the official election ballot, the Committee violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A). Travis claimed this action was tantamount to proxy voting because it prevented members from voting for or against certain candidates.

Key Factual Findings

Election and Nomination Timeline

• August 17, 2017: The Board of Directors appoints Cheryl Peterson-McCoy as the Nominating Committee Chairperson.

• September 12, 2017: The Association’s management company emails residents, announcing three open Board positions and an application deadline of September 29, 2017, at 5:00 p.m.

• By September 29, 2017: Four applications are received. At this point, the members of the Nominating Committee (other than the Chairperson) have not yet been selected.

• After September 29, 2017: The Association accepts four additional applications, including one from Mr. Travis. No revised notice is sent to the membership about an extended deadline.

• October 5, 2017: Mr. Travis, then a Board member, makes an email motion to extend the application deadline to October 16, which is denied.

• October 19, 2017: The Board formally approves six members for the Nominating Committee. Mr. Travis’s subsequent motion at this meeting to extend the deadline fails for lack of a second.

Nominating Committee Actions and Rationale

• The Committee considered all eight applications submitted, including the four received after the initial deadline.

• The Committee scheduled and conducted interviews with all eight applicants.

• During interviews, applicants were asked questions including whether they had ever filed a lawsuit against the Association, were considering filing a lawsuit, or had any compliance violations.

• The Committee ultimately nominated four candidates to be placed on the ballot for the election. Of these four, two had applied by the September 29 deadline and two had applied after.

Association’s Position and Testimony

• Simone McGinnis, the Association’s on-site manager, testified that the September 29 deadline was not imposed by the Board but was an administrative deadline set by the management company to allow time for the nomination and ballot-printing process.

• The Association’s position, articulated at the November 16, 2017 Board meeting, is that the only way to get on the ballot is to be nominated by the Nominating Committee, although write-in candidates are permitted during the election.

• The Board acknowledged that it had only strictly adhered to the Bylaw requirement of using a Nominating Committee for the past two years, after thirty years of non-adherence.

• The Board’s attorney stated that the Committee members have a duty to act reasonably and that any member who disagrees with the Committee’s discretionary choices should seek to amend the bylaws.

Analysis of Governing Documents and Statutes

The judge’s decision rested on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s Bylaws and relevant Arizona state law.

Document/Statute

Relevant Provision

Application in this Case

Bylaws Article IV, Section 3

“Nominations for election to the Board of Directors shall be made by a Nominating Committee… The Nominating Committee shall make as many nominations… as it shall in its discretion determine…”

This article grants the Committee explicit discretion to select nominees. It does not provide for “self-nomination” or require the Committee to nominate all applicants.

Bylaws Article VIII

“no committee may take action which exceeds its responsibilities. Each committee shall operate in accordance with any terms, limitations, or rules adopted by the Board.”

Mr. Travis argued the deadline was a “rule adopted by the Board.” The court found no evidence to support this, concluding it was an administrative deadline.

Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

States that Board Directors must be members of the Association. It lists no other qualifications.

Mr. Travis argued that questioning candidates imposed extra qualifications. The court found this was part of the Committee’s discretionary selection process, not the imposition of new formal requirements.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Prohibits proxy voting and requires that ballots set forth each proposed action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against it.

The court determined this statute applies to “votes allocated to a unit” (i.e., the member’s vote) and not the nomination process itself, which is governed by the Bylaws.

Conclusions of Law and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge made the following conclusions based on a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Deadline was Administrative: There was no substantial evidence showing the September 29, 2017 deadline was a formal rule adopted by the Board. Therefore, the Nominating Committee did not violate Bylaws Article VIII by accepting applications after this date.

2. Committee Acted Within its Discretion: The plain language of Bylaws Article IV, Section 3 requires nominations to be made by the Committee and grants it discretion. The concept of “self-nomination” is not supported by the Bylaws. It was not unreasonable for the Committee to question applicants as part of exercising its explicit discretion to select nominees.

3. State Voting Statute Not Applicable: The nomination process, as dictated by the Bylaws, is separate from the act of voting. Since ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812 governs “votes allocated to a unit,” it is not applicable to the Committee’s function of selecting nominees.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner William Travis’s petition is dismissed.

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

James and Shawna Larson vs. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Posted on August 24, 2017 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717038-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-12-11
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	James and Shawna Larson	Counsel	Lisa M. Hanger
Respondent	Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R sections 9 and 9(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA acted reasonably and had the authority under the CC&Rs to require the removal of the homeowner's patio cover for necessary painting and repairs. The ALJ determined that because the patio cover is a limited common element, the Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation according to A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs or acted unreasonably, and statutory law assigned the expense burden for the limited common element to the homeowner.

Key Issues & Findings

Authority of HOA to mandate removal of homeowner's patio cover for maintenance and assignment of removal/reinstallation costs.

Petitioners challenged the Respondent HOA's authority and reasonableness in requiring them to remove their patio cover, a limited common element, for building painting and repair, and disputed the requirement that Petitioners bear the costs. The ALJ concluded that the HOA's plan was reasonable, the HOA had the authority under CC&R sections 9 and 9(b), and Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation under A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
• CC&R section 9
• CC&R section 9(b)
• A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, limited common element, maintenance costs, patio cover, CC&Rs, statutory interpretation, dismissal, prevailing party

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
• CC&R section 9
• CC&R section 9(b)
• A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
• A.R.S. § 32-2199
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
• Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 583987.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:46 (53.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 585505.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:46 (385.9 KB)

Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The core conflict centered on the HOA’s directive that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project.

The case progressed through two distinct phases. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissing the Larsons’ petition for a lack of a “justiciable controversy,” reasoning that the HOA had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the dispute speculative. However, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected this recommendation, finding the matter was “ripe for adjudication,” and ordered a full hearing on the merits.

In the final decision, a second ALJ dismissed the Larsons’ petition and ruled in favor of the HOA. The judge found the HOA’s plan to be reasonable and necessary for the proper and safe completion of the project, based on credible testimony from the project manager. The decision affirmed the HOA’s authority under its CC&Rs to require the removal of the structure. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona law. Consequently, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, the homeowners (the Larsons) are exclusively responsible for all costs associated with it, including its removal and potential reinstallation.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Rulings

Initial Petition and Dismissal Recommendation

On June 16, 2017, James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate against their HOA, alleging a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, the initial filing did not specify which provisions had been violated.

Upon inquiry, the Petitioners’ counsel admitted via email that no specific provision of the CC&Rs had yet been violated. Instead, their concern was that section 10(a) would be violated if the HOA acted on its threat to forcibly remove their patio cover and charge them for the cost.

This led to the “ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY,” issued on August 25, 2017, by Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. The key findings of this order were:

• Speculative Harm: The Judge found that the HOA’s actions “have not yet been undertaken and our [are] speculative at this juncture.”

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The order stated that the Office of Administrative Hearings’ jurisdiction, per A.R.S. § 32-2199, is limited to adjudicating existing violations of community documents, not potential future ones.

• Misunderstanding by Both Parties: The order noted, “Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” The Petitioners were seeking a ruling on a future action, while the Respondent was urging the Tribunal to find the Petitioners had violated the CC&Rs, which was not the subject of the petition.

• Recommended Forum: The Judge suggested that the appropriate forum for the Petitioners would be a declaratory judgment action in superior court.

Rejection of Dismissal and Re-Hearing

On August 31, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued an “ORDER REJECTING RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL.”

• The Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s finding that the matter lacked a justiciable controversy.

• The order cited a letter from the Respondent dated June 1, 2017, which posed the question: “Is the presence of the awning a violation of the Association’s governing documents?”

• This question was deemed sufficient to make the matter “ripe for adjudication.”

• The Commissioner requested that the hearing be rescheduled for a ruling on the matter. A re-hearing was subsequently conducted on November 20, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

Analysis of the Merits of the Dispute

The re-hearing focused on the substantive conflict: whether the HOA had the authority to compel the Larsons to remove their patio cover at their own expense for the maintenance project.

Respondent’s (HOA) Case

The HOA, consisting of 169 units, initiated a project to make necessary repairs to its twenty-five buildings and then have them painted. The HOA’s position was based on the following points:

• Legal Authority: The HOA asserted its authority under sections 9 and 9(b) of its CC&Rs, which state that the HOA is responsible for maintaining building exteriors and that “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the… [building] exteriors… shall be taken by the [Respondent].”

• Project Necessity: The project manager, Wayne King, provided testimony that the HOA’s board deemed credible and reasonable.

◦ Safety: King stated that all five bidding contractors required the patio covers to be removed to ensure a safe work environment as mandated by the Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA).

◦ Logistics: Standard scaffolding would not fit without removing the covers, commercial scaffolding would not provide full access, a forklift was not viable due to overhead power lines, and allowing painters to walk on homeowner patio covers was unsafe.

◦ Quality of Work: The project involved sanding, power washing, and patching before painting to “do the job right.” Many covers had been improperly flashed, causing damage to the buildings that needed repair.

◦ Warranty: The paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, such as the Larsons, were permitted to paint their own units.

Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Case

The Larsons, who purchased their unit in 1999 with the wooden patio cover already in place, contested the HOA’s demands.

• Challenge to Authority: The Petitioners argued that the HOA had no legal authority to demand the removal of their patio cover.

• Unreasonable Cost: They asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation was unreasonable, submitting two bids:

◦ One bid quoted $1,250 to remove and dispose of the cover and $3,980 to remove and rebuild it with new wood.

◦ A second bid quoted $5,975 to remove and then replace the structure.

• Proposed Alternative: In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense.

• Compromise Offer: During the November 20, 2017 hearing, after hearing the project manager’s testimony, Ms. Larson offered that they would agree not to reinstall the patio cover if the HOA would pay for its removal.

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

On December 11, 2017, ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision dismissing the Larsons’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.

Key Findings and Conclusions of Law

Finding/Conclusion

Details

Standard of Review

The HOA’s decisions regarding maintenance and repair are given deference, provided they act reasonably.

Reasonableness of HOA Action

Based on the “credible testimony” of Wayne King, the Judge found that the HOA’s proposed plan for repairing and painting the buildings, which required the removal of patio covers, was reasonable.

HOA Authority

CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were found to be “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”

Patio Cover Classification

The Petitioners’ patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).

Cost Responsibility

The central issue of payment was decided by statute. The Judge concluded that under a “reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C),” any common expense associated with a limited common element “shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

“The evidence of record supports a conclusion that Respondent has authority to require Petitioners to remove their patio cover to allow the building to be properly and safely painted, and that Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.”

The final order was that the Petitioners’ petition be dismissed, and the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.

James and Shawna Larson vs. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Posted on August 24, 2017 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717038-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-12-11
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	James and Shawna Larson	Counsel	Lisa M. Hanger
Respondent	Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R sections 9 and 9(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA acted reasonably and had the authority under the CC&Rs to require the removal of the homeowner's patio cover for necessary painting and repairs. The ALJ determined that because the patio cover is a limited common element, the Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation according to A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs or acted unreasonably, and statutory law assigned the expense burden for the limited common element to the homeowner.

Key Issues & Findings

Authority of HOA to mandate removal of homeowner's patio cover for maintenance and assignment of removal/reinstallation costs.

Petitioners challenged the Respondent HOA's authority and reasonableness in requiring them to remove their patio cover, a limited common element, for building painting and repair, and disputed the requirement that Petitioners bear the costs. The ALJ concluded that the HOA's plan was reasonable, the HOA had the authority under CC&R sections 9 and 9(b), and Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation under A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
• CC&R section 9
• CC&R section 9(b)
• A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, limited common element, maintenance costs, patio cover, CC&Rs, statutory interpretation, dismissal, prevailing party

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
• CC&R section 9
• CC&R section 9(b)
• A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
• A.R.S. § 32-2199
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
• Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 583987.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:51:36 (53.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 585505.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:51:37 (385.9 KB)

Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The core conflict centered on the HOA’s directive that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project.

The case progressed through two distinct phases. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissing the Larsons’ petition for a lack of a “justiciable controversy,” reasoning that the HOA had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the dispute speculative. However, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected this recommendation, finding the matter was “ripe for adjudication,” and ordered a full hearing on the merits.

In the final decision, a second ALJ dismissed the Larsons’ petition and ruled in favor of the HOA. The judge found the HOA’s plan to be reasonable and necessary for the proper and safe completion of the project, based on credible testimony from the project manager. The decision affirmed the HOA’s authority under its CC&Rs to require the removal of the structure. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona law. Consequently, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, the homeowners (the Larsons) are exclusively responsible for all costs associated with it, including its removal and potential reinstallation.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Rulings

Initial Petition and Dismissal Recommendation

On June 16, 2017, James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate against their HOA, alleging a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, the initial filing did not specify which provisions had been violated.

Upon inquiry, the Petitioners’ counsel admitted via email that no specific provision of the CC&Rs had yet been violated. Instead, their concern was that section 10(a) would be violated if the HOA acted on its threat to forcibly remove their patio cover and charge them for the cost.

This led to the “ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY,” issued on August 25, 2017, by Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. The key findings of this order were:

• Speculative Harm: The Judge found that the HOA’s actions “have not yet been undertaken and our [are] speculative at this juncture.”

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The order stated that the Office of Administrative Hearings’ jurisdiction, per A.R.S. § 32-2199, is limited to adjudicating existing violations of community documents, not potential future ones.

• Misunderstanding by Both Parties: The order noted, “Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” The Petitioners were seeking a ruling on a future action, while the Respondent was urging the Tribunal to find the Petitioners had violated the CC&Rs, which was not the subject of the petition.

• Recommended Forum: The Judge suggested that the appropriate forum for the Petitioners would be a declaratory judgment action in superior court.

Rejection of Dismissal and Re-Hearing

On August 31, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued an “ORDER REJECTING RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL.”

• The Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s finding that the matter lacked a justiciable controversy.

• The order cited a letter from the Respondent dated June 1, 2017, which posed the question: “Is the presence of the awning a violation of the Association’s governing documents?”

• This question was deemed sufficient to make the matter “ripe for adjudication.”

• The Commissioner requested that the hearing be rescheduled for a ruling on the matter. A re-hearing was subsequently conducted on November 20, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

Analysis of the Merits of the Dispute

The re-hearing focused on the substantive conflict: whether the HOA had the authority to compel the Larsons to remove their patio cover at their own expense for the maintenance project.

Respondent’s (HOA) Case

The HOA, consisting of 169 units, initiated a project to make necessary repairs to its twenty-five buildings and then have them painted. The HOA’s position was based on the following points:

• Legal Authority: The HOA asserted its authority under sections 9 and 9(b) of its CC&Rs, which state that the HOA is responsible for maintaining building exteriors and that “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the… [building] exteriors… shall be taken by the [Respondent].”

• Project Necessity: The project manager, Wayne King, provided testimony that the HOA’s board deemed credible and reasonable.

◦ Safety: King stated that all five bidding contractors required the patio covers to be removed to ensure a safe work environment as mandated by the Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA).

◦ Logistics: Standard scaffolding would not fit without removing the covers, commercial scaffolding would not provide full access, a forklift was not viable due to overhead power lines, and allowing painters to walk on homeowner patio covers was unsafe.

◦ Quality of Work: The project involved sanding, power washing, and patching before painting to “do the job right.” Many covers had been improperly flashed, causing damage to the buildings that needed repair.

◦ Warranty: The paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, such as the Larsons, were permitted to paint their own units.

Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Case

The Larsons, who purchased their unit in 1999 with the wooden patio cover already in place, contested the HOA’s demands.

• Challenge to Authority: The Petitioners argued that the HOA had no legal authority to demand the removal of their patio cover.

• Unreasonable Cost: They asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation was unreasonable, submitting two bids:

◦ One bid quoted $1,250 to remove and dispose of the cover and $3,980 to remove and rebuild it with new wood.

◦ A second bid quoted $5,975 to remove and then replace the structure.

• Proposed Alternative: In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense.

• Compromise Offer: During the November 20, 2017 hearing, after hearing the project manager’s testimony, Ms. Larson offered that they would agree not to reinstall the patio cover if the HOA would pay for its removal.

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

On December 11, 2017, ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision dismissing the Larsons’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.

Key Findings and Conclusions of Law

Finding/Conclusion

Details

Standard of Review

The HOA’s decisions regarding maintenance and repair are given deference, provided they act reasonably.

Reasonableness of HOA Action

Based on the “credible testimony” of Wayne King, the Judge found that the HOA’s proposed plan for repairing and painting the buildings, which required the removal of patio covers, was reasonable.

HOA Authority

CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were found to be “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”

Patio Cover Classification

The Petitioners’ patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).

Cost Responsibility

The central issue of payment was decided by statute. The Judge concluded that under a “reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C),” any common expense associated with a limited common element “shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

“The evidence of record supports a conclusion that Respondent has authority to require Petitioners to remove their patio cover to allow the building to be properly and safely painted, and that Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.”

The final order was that the Petitioners’ petition be dismissed, and the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.

James and Shawna Larson vs. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Posted on August 24, 2017 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717038-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-12-11
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	James and Shawna Larson	Counsel	Lisa M. Hanger
Respondent	Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R sections 9 and 9(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA acted reasonably and had the authority under the CC&Rs to require the removal of the homeowner's patio cover for necessary painting and repairs. The ALJ determined that because the patio cover is a limited common element, the Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation according to A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs or acted unreasonably, and statutory law assigned the expense burden for the limited common element to the homeowner.

Key Issues & Findings

Authority of HOA to mandate removal of homeowner's patio cover for maintenance and assignment of removal/reinstallation costs.

Petitioners challenged the Respondent HOA's authority and reasonableness in requiring them to remove their patio cover, a limited common element, for building painting and repair, and disputed the requirement that Petitioners bear the costs. The ALJ concluded that the HOA's plan was reasonable, the HOA had the authority under CC&R sections 9 and 9(b), and Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation under A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
• CC&R section 9
• CC&R section 9(b)
• A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, limited common element, maintenance costs, patio cover, CC&Rs, statutory interpretation, dismissal, prevailing party

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
• CC&R section 9
• CC&R section 9(b)
• A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
• A.R.S. § 32-2199
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
• Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 583987.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:58:14 (53.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 585505.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:58:15 (385.9 KB)

Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The core conflict centered on the HOA’s directive that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project.

The case progressed through two distinct phases. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissing the Larsons’ petition for a lack of a “justiciable controversy,” reasoning that the HOA had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the dispute speculative. However, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected this recommendation, finding the matter was “ripe for adjudication,” and ordered a full hearing on the merits.

In the final decision, a second ALJ dismissed the Larsons’ petition and ruled in favor of the HOA. The judge found the HOA’s plan to be reasonable and necessary for the proper and safe completion of the project, based on credible testimony from the project manager. The decision affirmed the HOA’s authority under its CC&Rs to require the removal of the structure. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona law. Consequently, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, the homeowners (the Larsons) are exclusively responsible for all costs associated with it, including its removal and potential reinstallation.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Rulings

Initial Petition and Dismissal Recommendation

On June 16, 2017, James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate against their HOA, alleging a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, the initial filing did not specify which provisions had been violated.

Upon inquiry, the Petitioners’ counsel admitted via email that no specific provision of the CC&Rs had yet been violated. Instead, their concern was that section 10(a) would be violated if the HOA acted on its threat to forcibly remove their patio cover and charge them for the cost.

This led to the “ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY,” issued on August 25, 2017, by Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. The key findings of this order were:

• Speculative Harm: The Judge found that the HOA’s actions “have not yet been undertaken and our [are] speculative at this juncture.”

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The order stated that the Office of Administrative Hearings’ jurisdiction, per A.R.S. § 32-2199, is limited to adjudicating existing violations of community documents, not potential future ones.

• Misunderstanding by Both Parties: The order noted, “Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” The Petitioners were seeking a ruling on a future action, while the Respondent was urging the Tribunal to find the Petitioners had violated the CC&Rs, which was not the subject of the petition.

• Recommended Forum: The Judge suggested that the appropriate forum for the Petitioners would be a declaratory judgment action in superior court.

Rejection of Dismissal and Re-Hearing

On August 31, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued an “ORDER REJECTING RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL.”

• The Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s finding that the matter lacked a justiciable controversy.

• The order cited a letter from the Respondent dated June 1, 2017, which posed the question: “Is the presence of the awning a violation of the Association’s governing documents?”

• This question was deemed sufficient to make the matter “ripe for adjudication.”

• The Commissioner requested that the hearing be rescheduled for a ruling on the matter. A re-hearing was subsequently conducted on November 20, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

Analysis of the Merits of the Dispute

The re-hearing focused on the substantive conflict: whether the HOA had the authority to compel the Larsons to remove their patio cover at their own expense for the maintenance project.

Respondent’s (HOA) Case

The HOA, consisting of 169 units, initiated a project to make necessary repairs to its twenty-five buildings and then have them painted. The HOA’s position was based on the following points:

• Legal Authority: The HOA asserted its authority under sections 9 and 9(b) of its CC&Rs, which state that the HOA is responsible for maintaining building exteriors and that “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the… [building] exteriors… shall be taken by the [Respondent].”

• Project Necessity: The project manager, Wayne King, provided testimony that the HOA’s board deemed credible and reasonable.

◦ Safety: King stated that all five bidding contractors required the patio covers to be removed to ensure a safe work environment as mandated by the Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA).

◦ Logistics: Standard scaffolding would not fit without removing the covers, commercial scaffolding would not provide full access, a forklift was not viable due to overhead power lines, and allowing painters to walk on homeowner patio covers was unsafe.

◦ Quality of Work: The project involved sanding, power washing, and patching before painting to “do the job right.” Many covers had been improperly flashed, causing damage to the buildings that needed repair.

◦ Warranty: The paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, such as the Larsons, were permitted to paint their own units.

Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Case

The Larsons, who purchased their unit in 1999 with the wooden patio cover already in place, contested the HOA’s demands.

• Challenge to Authority: The Petitioners argued that the HOA had no legal authority to demand the removal of their patio cover.

• Unreasonable Cost: They asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation was unreasonable, submitting two bids:

◦ One bid quoted $1,250 to remove and dispose of the cover and $3,980 to remove and rebuild it with new wood.

◦ A second bid quoted $5,975 to remove and then replace the structure.

• Proposed Alternative: In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense.

• Compromise Offer: During the November 20, 2017 hearing, after hearing the project manager’s testimony, Ms. Larson offered that they would agree not to reinstall the patio cover if the HOA would pay for its removal.

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

On December 11, 2017, ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision dismissing the Larsons’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.

Key Findings and Conclusions of Law

Finding/Conclusion

Details

Standard of Review

The HOA’s decisions regarding maintenance and repair are given deference, provided they act reasonably.

Reasonableness of HOA Action

Based on the “credible testimony” of Wayne King, the Judge found that the HOA’s proposed plan for repairing and painting the buildings, which required the removal of patio covers, was reasonable.

HOA Authority

CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were found to be “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”

Patio Cover Classification

The Petitioners’ patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).

Cost Responsibility

The central issue of payment was decided by statute. The Judge concluded that under a “reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C),” any common expense associated with a limited common element “shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

“The evidence of record supports a conclusion that Respondent has authority to require Petitioners to remove their patio cover to allow the building to be properly and safely painted, and that Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.”

The final order was that the Petitioners’ petition be dismissed, and the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.

James and Shawna Larson vs. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Posted on August 24, 2017 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717038-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-12-11
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	James and Shawna Larson	Counsel	Lisa M. Hanger
Respondent	Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R sections 9 and 9(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA acted reasonably and had the authority under the CC&Rs to require the removal of the homeowner's patio cover for necessary painting and repairs. The ALJ determined that because the patio cover is a limited common element, the Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation according to A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs or acted unreasonably, and statutory law assigned the expense burden for the limited common element to the homeowner.

Key Issues & Findings

Authority of HOA to mandate removal of homeowner's patio cover for maintenance and assignment of removal/reinstallation costs.

Petitioners challenged the Respondent HOA's authority and reasonableness in requiring them to remove their patio cover, a limited common element, for building painting and repair, and disputed the requirement that Petitioners bear the costs. The ALJ concluded that the HOA's plan was reasonable, the HOA had the authority under CC&R sections 9 and 9(b), and Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation under A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
• CC&R section 9
• CC&R section 9(b)
• A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, limited common element, maintenance costs, patio cover, CC&Rs, statutory interpretation, dismissal, prevailing party

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
• CC&R section 9
• CC&R section 9(b)
• A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
• A.R.S. § 32-2199
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
• Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 583987.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:29 (53.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 585505.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:30 (385.9 KB)

Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The core conflict centered on the HOA’s directive that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project.

The case progressed through two distinct phases. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissing the Larsons’ petition for a lack of a “justiciable controversy,” reasoning that the HOA had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the dispute speculative. However, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected this recommendation, finding the matter was “ripe for adjudication,” and ordered a full hearing on the merits.

In the final decision, a second ALJ dismissed the Larsons’ petition and ruled in favor of the HOA. The judge found the HOA’s plan to be reasonable and necessary for the proper and safe completion of the project, based on credible testimony from the project manager. The decision affirmed the HOA’s authority under its CC&Rs to require the removal of the structure. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona law. Consequently, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, the homeowners (the Larsons) are exclusively responsible for all costs associated with it, including its removal and potential reinstallation.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Rulings

Initial Petition and Dismissal Recommendation

On June 16, 2017, James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate against their HOA, alleging a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, the initial filing did not specify which provisions had been violated.

Upon inquiry, the Petitioners’ counsel admitted via email that no specific provision of the CC&Rs had yet been violated. Instead, their concern was that section 10(a) would be violated if the HOA acted on its threat to forcibly remove their patio cover and charge them for the cost.

This led to the “ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY,” issued on August 25, 2017, by Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. The key findings of this order were:

• Speculative Harm: The Judge found that the HOA’s actions “have not yet been undertaken and our [are] speculative at this juncture.”

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The order stated that the Office of Administrative Hearings’ jurisdiction, per A.R.S. § 32-2199, is limited to adjudicating existing violations of community documents, not potential future ones.

• Misunderstanding by Both Parties: The order noted, “Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” The Petitioners were seeking a ruling on a future action, while the Respondent was urging the Tribunal to find the Petitioners had violated the CC&Rs, which was not the subject of the petition.

• Recommended Forum: The Judge suggested that the appropriate forum for the Petitioners would be a declaratory judgment action in superior court.

Rejection of Dismissal and Re-Hearing

On August 31, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued an “ORDER REJECTING RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL.”

• The Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s finding that the matter lacked a justiciable controversy.

• The order cited a letter from the Respondent dated June 1, 2017, which posed the question: “Is the presence of the awning a violation of the Association’s governing documents?”

• This question was deemed sufficient to make the matter “ripe for adjudication.”

• The Commissioner requested that the hearing be rescheduled for a ruling on the matter. A re-hearing was subsequently conducted on November 20, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

Analysis of the Merits of the Dispute

The re-hearing focused on the substantive conflict: whether the HOA had the authority to compel the Larsons to remove their patio cover at their own expense for the maintenance project.

Respondent’s (HOA) Case

The HOA, consisting of 169 units, initiated a project to make necessary repairs to its twenty-five buildings and then have them painted. The HOA’s position was based on the following points:

• Legal Authority: The HOA asserted its authority under sections 9 and 9(b) of its CC&Rs, which state that the HOA is responsible for maintaining building exteriors and that “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the… [building] exteriors… shall be taken by the [Respondent].”

• Project Necessity: The project manager, Wayne King, provided testimony that the HOA’s board deemed credible and reasonable.

◦ Safety: King stated that all five bidding contractors required the patio covers to be removed to ensure a safe work environment as mandated by the Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA).

◦ Logistics: Standard scaffolding would not fit without removing the covers, commercial scaffolding would not provide full access, a forklift was not viable due to overhead power lines, and allowing painters to walk on homeowner patio covers was unsafe.

◦ Quality of Work: The project involved sanding, power washing, and patching before painting to “do the job right.” Many covers had been improperly flashed, causing damage to the buildings that needed repair.

◦ Warranty: The paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, such as the Larsons, were permitted to paint their own units.

Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Case

The Larsons, who purchased their unit in 1999 with the wooden patio cover already in place, contested the HOA’s demands.

• Challenge to Authority: The Petitioners argued that the HOA had no legal authority to demand the removal of their patio cover.

• Unreasonable Cost: They asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation was unreasonable, submitting two bids:

◦ One bid quoted $1,250 to remove and dispose of the cover and $3,980 to remove and rebuild it with new wood.

◦ A second bid quoted $5,975 to remove and then replace the structure.

• Proposed Alternative: In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense.

• Compromise Offer: During the November 20, 2017 hearing, after hearing the project manager’s testimony, Ms. Larson offered that they would agree not to reinstall the patio cover if the HOA would pay for its removal.

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

On December 11, 2017, ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision dismissing the Larsons’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.

Key Findings and Conclusions of Law

Finding/Conclusion

Details

Standard of Review

The HOA’s decisions regarding maintenance and repair are given deference, provided they act reasonably.

Reasonableness of HOA Action

Based on the “credible testimony” of Wayne King, the Judge found that the HOA’s proposed plan for repairing and painting the buildings, which required the removal of patio covers, was reasonable.

HOA Authority

CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were found to be “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”

Patio Cover Classification

The Petitioners’ patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).

Cost Responsibility

The central issue of payment was decided by statute. The Judge concluded that under a “reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C),” any common expense associated with a limited common element “shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

“The evidence of record supports a conclusion that Respondent has authority to require Petitioners to remove their patio cover to allow the building to be properly and safely painted, and that Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.”

The final order was that the Petitioners’ petition be dismissed, and the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.