Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

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, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 6

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Respondent violated Article VI of the CC&Rs by failing to maintain the natural desert area within the Common Area up to the exterior building lines. The CC&Rs mandate the Association maintain and remove all rubbish within its property up to the exterior building lines, and the Board lacked authority to designate this area as unmaintained natural desert without amending the CC&Rs. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and the filing fee was refunded.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Maintain Common Area

Petitioners alleged Respondent HOA violated Article 6 of the CC&Rs by failing to maintain the common area, specifically the unmaintained natural desert area (approx. two acres) located behind the townhome units, up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures.

Orders: Respondent is deemed the non-prevailing party. Respondent must pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of Article VI (6) of the CC&Rs going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 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)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance, CC&R violation, Common Area, Maintenance scope, Filing fee refund, Administrative Law Judge Decision, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • 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
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – 959583.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:07 (49.7 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – 964651.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:07 (18.7 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – 964655.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:07 (99.7 KB)

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)

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)

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)

Carlos J Sanchez & Marinda K Minch, vs. Tempe Villages Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-09
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carlos J. Sanchez & Marinda K. Minch Counsel —
Respondent Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Ashley Moscarello

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article 4 Section 1

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because Petitioners failed to prove the Respondent HOA violated the Bylaws regarding the filling of a vacant Board seat. The ALJ determined the Bylaws did not impose a timeframe for filling the vacancy and the Board acted according to Article IV, Section 3.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Bylaws do not contain a provision providing a timeframe in which a vacancy on the Board must be filled.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Bylaws regarding Board of Directors composition and appointment

Petitioners alleged the HOA violated Bylaws Article 4 Section 1 by leaving a Board seat open following a resignation (August 2020) and not filling it until November 2020. The ALJ found the Bylaws (Sections 1, 2, and 3) did not mandate a timeframe for filling a vacancy, and the HOA followed procedures for appointment.

Orders: Petitioners’ 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)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, Board of Directors, Bylaws, Board Vacancy
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)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121033-REL Decision – 862059.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:44 (132.3 KB)

Aaron Ricks (Somerstone Properties, LLC), v. Montelena Master

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120024-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-16
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Aaron Ricks (Somerstone Properties, LLC) Counsel —
Respondent Montelena Master Community Association Counsel Troy Stratman

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-442, A.R.S. § 33-1806

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Montelena Master Community Association violated A.R.S. § 33-442 or its CC&Rs regarding the imposition of a transfer fee. The ALJ found that the use of the fee to fund operating expenses and/or reserves was an acceptable purpose under the relevant statute.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish Respondent acted in violation of the community documents and A.R.S. § 33-442.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to unauthorized/unlawful transfer fees charged by HOA

Petitioner alleged that the $2500.00 transfer fee charged to the purchaser was an unlawful transfer fee in violation of A.R.S. § 33-442 and specific CC&R provisions, arguing that the authorized use of the fee (Master Association’s operating expenses and/or reserves) was not specific enough to meet the statutory exception under A.R.S. § 33-442(C).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1806
  • A.R.S. § 33-442
  • 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)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA transfer fee, A.R.S. 33-442, CC&R violation, Operating expenses, Reserves
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1806
  • A.R.S. § 33-442
  • 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)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120024-REL Decision – 855401.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:34 (95.8 KB)

Erik R. Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Erik R. Pierce Counsel James C. Frisch
Respondent Sierra Morado Community Association Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami and Heather M. Hampstead

Alleged Violations

Article 11, Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 11.1 because that section grants the Board discretion, rather than a mandatory obligation, in the timing of enforcement actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated CC&R Section 11.1, as the ALJ found the Board's decision to temporarily delay enforcement pending litigation and settlement discussions fell within the discretion granted by the CC&R.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure of HOA to Enforce Architectural Approval Conditions (Hot Tub Screening)

Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to enforce the mandatory installation of a pergola and screening around a neighbor's hot tub, a condition imposed by the Architectural Review Committee when retroactively approving the installation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Dispute, Architectural Control, Discretionary Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • 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 4, Section 4.27
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850237.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (43.0 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850239.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (7.1 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 853778.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (119.9 KB)

Erik R. Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Erik R. Pierce Counsel James C. Frisch
Respondent Sierra Morado Community Association Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami and Heather M. Hampstead

Alleged Violations

Article 11, Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 11.1 because that section grants the Board discretion, rather than a mandatory obligation, in the timing of enforcement actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated CC&R Section 11.1, as the ALJ found the Board's decision to temporarily delay enforcement pending litigation and settlement discussions fell within the discretion granted by the CC&R.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure of HOA to Enforce Architectural Approval Conditions (Hot Tub Screening)

Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to enforce the mandatory installation of a pergola and screening around a neighbor's hot tub, a condition imposed by the Architectural Review Committee when retroactively approving the installation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Dispute, Architectural Control, Discretionary Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • 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 4, Section 4.27
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850237.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:11:56 (43.0 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850239.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:11:56 (7.1 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 853778.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:11:57 (119.9 KB)