Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716002-REL-RHG
Briefing Document: Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key events, arguments, and legal conclusions from the administrative case of Paul Gounder versus the Royal Riviera Condominium Association (Case No. 17F-H1716002-REL-RHG). The central issue revolved around the Association’s use of two substantively different ballots for its March 14, 2016, board member election.
The Petitioner, Paul Gounder, alleged that the use of a separate mail-in ballot and an in-person meeting ballot, which contained different candidate lists, violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2). Specifically, the ballot distributed at the meeting included the name of a seventh candidate, Eric Thompson, who was not listed on the mail-in ballot, thereby denying absentee voters the opportunity to vote for all candidates.
After an initial hearing resulted in a recommended dismissal, a rehearing was granted. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Suzanne Marwil ultimately concluded that the Association’s actions constituted a statutory violation. The Judge found that because members voting by mail were not informed of Mr. Thompson’s candidacy, they were denied their right to vote “for or against each proposed action.” The Respondent’s argument that the matter was moot due to a subsequent election was rejected.
The Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order on June 12, 2017. The Order granted the petition and required the Royal Riviera Condominium Association to reimburse Mr. Gounder’s $500.00 filing fee. The ruling establishes that while election ballots are not required to be identical, any substantive changes must be presented to all members to ensure an equal opportunity to vote.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview and Background
This matter was brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Petitioner: Paul Gounder, a condominium owner and member of the Association.
• Respondent: Royal Riviera Condominium Association, a homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 32 condominiums.
• Initial Petition: Filed on or about June 23, 2016.
• Core Allegation: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) and its own CC&Rs by using two substantively different ballots to elect Board members at its March 14, 2016, annual meeting.
II. Procedural History
1. Initial Hearing (October 17, 2016): A hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.
2. Recommended Dismissal (October 18, 2016): Judge Mihalsky recommended the petition be dismissed, concluding:
3. Rehearing Granted (February 17, 2017): The Petitioner requested a rehearing, which the Department of Real Estate granted. The Department’s order specifically requested a review of A.R.S. § 33-1250, with a focus on subsection (C)(4).
4. Rehearing (May 17, 2017): A rehearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. At this hearing, the Respondent raised a procedural question regarding the correct statutory subsection for review, leading to a temporary order holding the record open until May 24, 2017, for clarification.
5. ALJ Decision (June 2, 2017): Judge Marwil issued a decision finding that the Respondent had committed a statutory violation.
6. Final Order (June 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, accepted the ALJ’s decision and issued a Final Order making the decision binding.
III. The Core Dispute: The Two-Ballot System
The parties stipulated that two different ballots were used for the March 14, 2016, board election, which had seven open positions. The key differences are outlined below.
Feature
Mail Ballot (Absentee)
Meeting Ballot (In-Person)
“Mail Ballot”
“Ballot”
Candidates Listed
Six names
Seven names (added Eric Thompson)
Write-in Option
Included a blank line for a write-in candidate
No space provided for write-in candidates
Distribution
Distributed at least seven days before the meeting
Handed out to members attending the meeting
Return Deadline
Specified the date by which it had to be returned
Did not specify when it needed to be returned
IV. Arguments of the Parties
A. Petitioner’s Position (Paul Gounder)
• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2): The addition of Eric Thompson’s name to the meeting ballot deprived members who voted by mail of their right “to vote for or against each proposed action,” as they had no opportunity to vote for Mr. Thompson.
• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4): The meeting ballot violated this subsection because it was not mailed to all members at least seven days in advance of the meeting and did not provide a date by which it had to be received to be counted.
B. Respondent’s Position (Royal Riviera Condominium Association)
• No Violation: The statutes do not explicitly require the use of identical ballots for an election.
• Common Practice: It is a common practice for homeowners’ associations to use a different absentee ballot and meeting ballot.
• Mootness: The issue is moot because the Association had already held another election in 2017 and seated a new board, which included the Petitioner’s wife as a member.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
In her June 2, 2017 decision, ALJ Suzanne Marwil made the following key legal conclusions:
The ALJ found that the Association’s use of two substantively different ballots did violate this statute.
• Reasoning: Members who did not attend the meeting in person were not notified of Mr. Thompson’s willingness to run for the board. As a result, “these members did not have the opportunity to vote for him and hence were denied their right to vote for or against each proposed action contained in the meeting ballot.”
• Clarification: The ruling explicitly states that this finding does not impose a requirement that all ballots must be identical; however, it establishes that “substantive changes to ballots must be presented to all members.”
The ALJ concluded that no violation of this subsection occurred.
• Reasoning: The Petitioner conceded that the absentee ballot itself complied with the statutory requirements (e.g., being mailed seven days in advance with a return-by date). The judge reasoned that a meeting ballot handed out in person would not need to contain this information if it were “substantively the same as the absentee ballot.” The legal problem arose not from a failure to mail the second ballot, but from the substantive difference between the two.
The ALJ determined that the matter was not rendered moot by the 2017 election and the seating of a new board. The Judge affirmed that the tribunal “can and does find that Respondent committed a statutory violation in the course of holding its 2016 election.”
VI. Final Order and Outcome
• ALJ Recommended Order (June 2, 2017):
◦ The Petitioner’s petition should be granted.
◦ The Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.
◦ No other relief was available to the Petitioner.
• Department of Real Estate Final Order (June 12, 2017):
◦ The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision.
◦ The Order is a final administrative action, effective immediately.
◦ The Royal Riviera Condominium Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.
◦ The parties were notified that the Order could be appealed via a complaint for judicial review.
