Tag Archives: A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)

Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-18
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brenda C Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Mackenzie Hill, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 3.1(D)(3) of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R regarding flood illumination direction and ARC approval process.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent (RDLCA) violated CC&R 3.1(D)(3) because a neighbor installed flood lights shining onto Petitioner's property without RDLCA approval (ARC approval). The ALJ found RDLCA in violation because the lights were never approved.

Orders: RDLCA must comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was levied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Lighting, Architectural Review, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:38 (95.0 KB)

Kathy Padalino v. Legend Trail Parcel A

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221003-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-08
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kathy Padalino Counsel —
Respondent Legend Trail Parcel A Counsel Kelsey Dressen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1 Section 26, Article 4 Section 4.6, and Article 2, Section 2.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed after finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden to establish a violation by the Respondent of the cited sections of the CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs, and did not establish that Respondent was obligated to provide her with an individual access code separate from the one already provided to the Lot.

Key Issues & Findings

The dispute between Petitioner and Respondent arises from Community Document Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions Article 1 Section 26, Article 4 Section 4.6, and Article 2, Section 2.4.

Petitioner filed an HOA Dispute Process Petition alleging a violation of community documents because the HOA refused to grant her a personal access gate code. Petitioner argued that as an owner and member, she was entitled to her own personal and individual access code. Respondent disputed the violation, asserting the lot already had multiple modes of access, and was not obligated to provide an additional individual code.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article 1 Section 26
  • CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.6
  • CC&Rs Article 2, Section 2.4
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Gate Access, Access Code Policy
Additional Citations:

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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221003-REL Decision – 930504.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:48 (109.5 KB)

Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221009-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-04-25
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sam & Pipper O' Shaughnessy Stangl Counsel —
Respondent Sabino Vista Townhouse Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

Article VI of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge deemed Petitioners the prevailing party. Respondent HOA violated Article VI of the CC&Rs by failing to maintain and remove rubbish from the natural desert area within the Common Area up to the exterior building lines, as the Board's determination not to maintain the area lacked proper authority without a CC&R amendment. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and refund the Petitioners' filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA maintenance obligations for common area up to exterior building lines

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures, specifically a natural desert area within the Common Area. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs require the Association to maintain and remove all rubbish within its property up to the exterior building lines, and the Board lacked the authority to refuse maintenance of the natural desert area without amending the CC&Rs.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with the requirements of Article VI of the CC&Rs going forward and must pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article VI of the CC&Rs
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Maintenance, CC&R Interpretation, Common Area Maintenance, Filing Fee Refund, Prevailing Party
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221009-REL Decision – 927714.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:04 (95.3 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL Decision – 927747.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:04 (37.5 KB)

Vance Gribble v. Legend Trail Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221004-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-04
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Vance Gribble Counsel —
Respondent Legend Trail Community Association Counsel Josh Bolen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808(E); Article 1 § 18 of the Declaration; Article 3 § 5 of the Declaration

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1808(E), A.R.S. § 33-1808(F), or the cited Declaration Articles.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1808(E), A.R.S. § 33-1808(F), or Article 3 § 5/Article 1 § 18 of the Declaration.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA rule adoption/enforcement regarding motorized vehicle use (ATVs/scooters)

Petitioner alleged the Association improperly prohibited the use of ATVs and motorized scooters on Association streets via e-mails (March 31, 2021, and June 21, 2021). The Association contended these were not rules and no formal enforcement action was taken.

Orders: Petitioner Vance Gribble’s petition against Respondent Legend Trail Community Association is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1808(F)
  • Article 1 § 18 of the Declaration
  • Article 3 § 5 of the Declaration

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Recreational Activity, Motorized Vehicles, ATVs, Scooters, Rule Adoption, Declaration, Common Area
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1808(F)
  • Article 1 § 18 of the Declaration
  • Article 3 § 5 of the Declaration
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-3101 to 33-11702
  • A.R.S. § 10-3140
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court
  • Powell v. Washburn
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221004-REL Decision – 922828.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:53 (100.5 KB)

Brian D Sopatyk v. Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121065-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian D. Sopatyk Counsel Jacob A. Kubert, Esq.
Respondent Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc. Counsel Penny L. Koepke, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issues 1 and 3, while Respondent was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 2 because he failed to prove the Respondent's no-pet policy was arbitrarily or unreasonably applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that screen doors are not permitted in Xanadu under CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2), and CC&R Article 7 (Architectural Committee authority) does not override this explicit prohibition.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2) going forward.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
  • CC&R Article 7

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)

Petitioner alleged violation concerning the 'no-pet' policy. The ALJ concluded that Respondent is not required to allow pets, but may allow them with Board approval, and the Petitioner did not establish that the policy was arbitrarily or unreasonably applied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-548

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

The ALJ concluded that the marquee is common area, and the Association was not authorized under CC&R Article 6 § 2(a) to charge a separate assessment or rental fee for its use. Furthermore, there was no evidence the $50 assessment complied with CC&R Article 6 § 5 (special assessment requirements).

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&R Article 6 § 2(a) going forward.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
  • CC&R Article 6 § 5
  • A.R.S. § 12-548

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, Condominium, CC&R Violation, Assessment Dispute, Architectural Control, Pet Policy, Statute of Limitations Defense
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-548
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
  • CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
  • CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
  • CC&R Article 6 § 5
  • CC&R Article 7

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 913797.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:45 (41.8 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 913859.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:45 (5.9 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 921820.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:45 (100.1 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 921823.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:45 (112.8 KB)

Daniel B Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-11
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel B Belt Counsel —
Respondent Beaver Valley Improvement Association Counsel Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order dismissing the Petitioner’s Petition because the Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on March 10, 2022, and thus failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing. Petitioner had previously indicated he would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Petition alleging violation

Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and thus failed to sustain the burden of proof required to establish the alleged violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed because Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and failed to sustain the burden of proof.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, failure_to_appear, dismissal, rehearing, OAH
Additional Citations:

  • 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • R2-19-119(A)
  • R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • 32-2199.02(B)
  • 12-904(A)
  • 41-1092.01
  • 41-1092.07(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936420.pdf

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

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936523.pdf

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

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 942810.pdf

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

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 954077.pdf

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

Lee & Kim Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-07-28
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lee & Kim Edwards Counsel Terry Foster, Esq.
Respondent Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1255, ruling that the statute was inapplicable due to the specific provisions in the Declaration regarding the 1/26 assessment calculation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the ALJ determined A.R.S. § 33-1255 was superseded by the Declaration, which mandated assessments based on the undivided 1/26 interest in the common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

Assessment calculation based on undivided interest in common areas

Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to change assessments from a historical square footage basis to a 1/26 interest calculation, arguing that this method violates A.R.S. § 33-1255 by charging for limited common elements (patios/parking).

Orders: The petition of Lee & Kim Edwards is dismissed; Respondent is deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255
  • Declaration Article I, Section 5
  • Declaration Article II, Section 5
  • Declaration Article II, Section 7
  • Declaration Article IV, Section 4
  • Declaration Article VI, Section 9

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, assessment, cc&r, statutory interpretation, common elements, limited common elements
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1255
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120028-REL-RHG Decision – 899379.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:39 (123.6 KB)

Gregory L Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811
CC&R Article 11.3.2

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Failure to Negotiate Claim Resolution in Good Faith

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 11.3.2

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

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

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article X, Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R’s Article X
  • CC&R’s Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

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

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

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

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article X, Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R’s Article X
  • CC&R’s Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

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

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

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