Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-02-20
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deatta M. Pleasants Counsel —
Respondent Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel David Onuschak

Alleged Violations

CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2. Maintenance and Repair, By the Association

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&Rs by the Association. The Association maintained the underground culverts in accordance with Navajo County approved plans, and the evidence established the culverts were functioning as intended. Flooding experienced by the Petitioner was expected due to the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during an exceptional storm (likely a 100-year event).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&R provision; the culverts were maintained and functioning as intended, and flooding was anticipated given the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during the exceptional storm event.

Key Issues & Findings

The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to repair or connect a culvert (common area), causing her lot located in a regulatory floodway to flood during a severe (100-year) storm in July 2021. The Respondent contended the drainage system was maintained, functioned as intended, and the flooding was due to the exceptional storm magnitude and the property's location in a floodway.

Orders: No action required of Respondent; Petitioner's Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

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.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Maintenance Violation, Drainage System, Culvert Maintenance, FEMA Floodway, 100-Year Storm, Civil Engineer Testimony
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • 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)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2
  • CC&Rs Rev. September 2022, Article 1, D.

Decision Documents

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1252432.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:48 (52.5 KB)

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1275219.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:48 (128.4 KB)

Robert P Fink & Brittany L Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H023-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-05-16
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson Counsel —
Respondent Casas Arroyo Association, Inc. Counsel David Onuschak, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article II Section 1(c)

Outcome Summary

Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c). The cited provision was inapplicable because the security gate installation did not involve transferring common area to a public agency or increasing the density of residences (the clause was read conjunctively).

Why this result: CC&R Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable because the sentence regarding improvements and density was written in the conjunctive using the word “and,” meaning the improvement must both be placed upon the common area AND increase the density of residences, neither of which applied to the security gate installation.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs regarding vote threshold for placing improvements on common area.

Petitioners alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c) by approving the installation of a security gate on the common area using a two-thirds standard of those who voted (resulting in 27 affirmative votes, 69-72% approval rate) when they asserted three quarters (3/4 or 30 votes out of 39 eligible lots) of eligible votes was required for an improvement on the common area.

Orders: Petitioners’ Petition is dismissed; no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(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. § 41-1092.09
  • CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
  • CC&R Article IV Section 2

Decision Documents

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1133251.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:18 (51.2 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1135497.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:18 (54.9 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1168799.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:18 (47.6 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1178674.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:18 (136.5 KB)

Thomas P. Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Authority to enforce parking rule on residential public streets

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1057905.pdf

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

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1059621.pdf

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

Barbara J. Ryan v. Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H035-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-17
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Barbara J. Ryan Counsel —
Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association Counsel Jody Corrales, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804, A.R.S. § 33-1318, Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1, 7.2, 12.1 – 12.3

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The ALJ found the Respondent violated Bylaw section 7.1 by failing to hold an annual members meeting in 2021 and 2022. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and ensure future compliance with Bylaw section 7.1. No civil penalty was imposed.

Why this result: The violation (failure to hold an annual member meeting) was undisputed by the Respondent, and Respondent's counsel conceded there were no legal defenses to this fact.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold an annual members meeting in two years and ignoring members written petitions and requests for a meeting

It was undisputed that the Respondent HOA failed to hold an annual meeting of the members from March 2020 to the time of the hearing. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated section 7.1 of its Bylaws.

Orders: Respondent must pay the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days and is directed to comply with section 7.1 of its Bylaws going forward. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1318
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.2
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 12.1 – 12.3
  • 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)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Annual Meeting, Bylaws Violation, Filing Fee Refund, Administrative Hearing, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1318
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.2
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 12.1 – 12.3
  • 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)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1043132.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:06 (55.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1048244.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:06 (37.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049662.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:07 (18.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049665.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:07 (23.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049666.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:07 (87.4 KB)

Carl-Mitchell Smoot v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-13
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Smoot Carl-Mitchell Counsel Stewart F. Gross, Esq.
Respondent Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc. Counsel Michael S. McLeran, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1819; CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural disapproval of landscaping plans to install artificial turf

Petitioner alleged Respondent's disapproval of his landscaping plans to install artificial turf violated the CC&Rs and was unreasonable under Arizona law. The ALJ concluded the disapproval violated CC&Rs Section 8.8 because the maintenance responsibility was shared, not exclusive to the HOA, and the HOA's CC&Rs must not contradict McCormick Ranch's Rules, which permit artificial turf.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1819
  • CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
  • CC&Rs Article 9.4
  • CC&Rs Article 6.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: artificial turf, landscaping, CC&Rs, shared maintenance, architectural control, McCormick Ranch
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1819
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
  • CC&Rs Article 9.4
  • CC&Rs Article 6.2

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005074.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:41 (54.0 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005155.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:42 (6.9 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1023283.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:42 (54.3 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1029871.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:42 (52.1 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1049042.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:42 (175.7 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992691.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:42 (48.6 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992789.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:42 (5.9 KB)

Carolyn Wefsenmoe v. Summit View Homeowner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H017-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carolyn Wefsenmoe Counsel —
Respondent Summit View Homeowner's Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3; Summit View Community Plat Notes

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the walls were built on the common area. Since HOA maintenance responsibility primarily attached to the common area, and the location of the walls relative to the lots remained unproven, the HOA was not found in violation of its maintenance obligations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls were located in a common area. No survey evidence was presented to determine whether the walls were on the individual lots (Owner responsibility) or the common area (HOA responsibility).

Key Issues & Findings

HOA failure to maintain perimeter walls and improper charging of homeowners for repairs.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA (SVHA) violated CC&R Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Community Plat Notes by failing to maintain the subdivision perimeter walls and charging homeowners for repairs, arguing the walls abutted and were part of the Common Area (NAOS), making maintenance the HOA's responsibility.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_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)
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Community Plat Notes

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Maintenance, Perimeter Walls, CC&R, Common Area, Burden of Proof, NAOS, Lot Line Dispute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Plat Notes

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018596.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (52.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018616.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (5.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1031301.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (53.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032541.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (258.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032542.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (723.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032543.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:27 (487.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032544.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-14T18:23:50 (3029.4 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032545.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:27 (81.9 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032546.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-14T18:23:51 (3401.3 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032547.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-14T18:23:51 (2346.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1035846.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:27 (114.5 KB)

Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Pamela McKinney Counsel —
Respondent Valle Vista Property Owners Association Counsel Alan Meda

Alleged Violations

Articles of Incorporation Article 8, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. A, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. B

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent HOA's Articles of Incorporation had been previously amended to be perpetual (1994, 1999) and that the CLRs automatically renew for an additional 25 years without requiring a homeowner vote, provided no modifications or changes are made.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated the Articles of Incorporation or the CLRs, as the evidence showed the corporation's existence was perpetual and the CLRs' automatic renewal was permissible without a vote.

Key Issues & Findings

Expiration of HOA Charter and unlawful extension of CLRs by Board resolution without member vote

Petitioner alleged the HOA's charter and CLRs expired after 50 years (2022) and that the Board unlawfully extended the CLRs for 25 years via a resolution (Resolution/Memorandum of September 27, 2022) without the required vote of the co-owners. The ALJ found that the Articles of Incorporation were perpetually extended by amendments in 1994 and 1999, and the CLRs automatically renewed without a vote because no modifications were made.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Articles of Incorporation (1972)
  • Articles of Amendment (1994)
  • Articles of Amendment (1999)
  • CLRs Unit One (1972)
  • Resolution 092722 (Sept 27, 2022)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Charter Expiration, CLRs Renewal, Perpetual Existence, Amendment Vote, HOA Board Authority, Arizona Real Estate Statute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • 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. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H019-REL Decision – 1030077.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:35 (140.1 KB)

Elieen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H002-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-11-17
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Eileen Ahearn Counsel —
Respondent High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Counsel Jason Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures (approved 19 July 2021)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of the right to vote in Removal/Recall Special Election

Petitioners alleged they were denied the right to vote in the July 5, 2022 Removal/Recall Special Election after their initial ballots (couriered prior to the meeting) were rejected for lacking a postmark, and their subsequent attempts to cast new ballots in person were rejected for reasons including 'double voting' or being 'too late.' The ALJ found the HOA violated its established election procedures.

Orders: The Petition was upheld, and Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Violation, Voting Rights, CCNR, Recall Election, Filing Fee Refund, Civil Penalty
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)
  • 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
  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1009442.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:49 (60.1 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1013289.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:50 (127.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996298.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:50 (54.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996319.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:50 (7.5 KB)

Amy Hillburn v. Stetson Valley Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H008-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-11-17
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Amy Hilburn Counsel —
Respondent Stetson Valley Owners Association Counsel Melissa Doolan, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804 and Article 6.2 of the Bylaws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had ceased holding regularly scheduled meetings since March 2022, thereby negating the statutory requirement that such committee meetings must be open to members.

Why this result: The ARC successfully argued that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) only mandates open access for 'any regularly scheduled committee meetings.' Since they transitioned to using an online portal on an irregular schedule, they were no longer holding 'regularly scheduled meetings,' meaning the statute did not require them to be open.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure of Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to hold open meetings where members can comment prior to a vote.

Petitioner alleged the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 (open meetings statute) by failing to hold open meetings, particularly after the ARC began processing requests using an online portal which allows for discussion and voting among members outside of noticed meetings. Historically, the ARC held regularly scheduled meetings on the first Tuesday of every month until March 2022. The ALJ ultimately ruled that since March 2022, the ARC was not holding 'regularly scheduled committee meetings' as defined by the statute.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • Article 6.2 of the Bylaws
  • 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. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Regularly Scheduled Meetings, Online Portal, Statutory Interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • Article 6.2 of the Bylaws

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H008-REL Decision – 1005178.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:10 (48.8 KB)

23F-H008-REL Decision – 1013302.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:10 (110.8 KB)

Asmaa Kadhum v. Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Asmaa Kadhum Counsel —
Respondent Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1256

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that since the lien central to the Petitioner's complaint (A.R.S. § 33-1256) had been released and no enforcement action was pending, there was no issue for the OAH to decide regarding the reasonableness of the remaining outstanding legal fees.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the underlying lien had been released and no enforcement action was being pursued by the Respondent against the property.

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees

Petitioner alleged Respondent (HOA) violated A.R.S. § 33-1256 by charging unreasonable collection fees and legal fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) related to a lien placed (June 15, 2020) and later released (November 13, 2020). Petitioner argued the fees were invalid as the underlying lien was improper and subsequently released. The ALJ found no violation because there was no recorded lien or pending enforcement action at the time of the petition (January 2022) or rehearing, thus removing the issue from the OAH's purview under the cited statute.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.R.S. § 33-420
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, lien, collection fees, attorney fees, released lien, rehearing, ARS 33-1256
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.R.S. § 33-420
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:46 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:46 (37.4 KB)