Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

David Y. Samuels v. The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H025-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-04-18
Administrative Law Judge Amy M. Haley
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David Y. Samuels Counsel —
Respondent The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association Counsel Ashley N. Turner

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The petition filed by David Y. Samuels against The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association was dismissed. The Tribunal found that Samuels lacked standing to bring the action as an individual, and the cited statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Planned Community Act), was improper for this condominium dispute.

Why this result: Petitioner lacked standing because the property was owned by Daso Properties, LLC, not by David Y. Samuels individually. Additionally, the Petitioner brought the action under the incorrect statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs planned communities, not condominiums.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation concerning late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessment payments

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 by charging unwarranted late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessments.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed because Petitioner lacked standing as an individual owner, and the cause of action was brought under the improper statute (Planned Community Act) for a condominium property.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: standing, condominium, planned community act, statutory violation, late fees, collection fees, attorney fees, jurisdiction, dismissal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)

Decision Documents

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1124651.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:26 (48.4 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1133120.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:26 (39.9 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1134423.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:26 (48.2 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139633.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:27 (55.7 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139646.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:27 (7.6 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1157271.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:27 (47.1 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1168680.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:27 (86.1 KB)

Jill P. Eden-Burns v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H015-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-18
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jill P. Eden-Burns Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (C), (E); CC&R 4.32

Outcome Summary

The petition was granted because the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law) by holding an informal quorum discussion prior to a meeting, and violated CC&R 4.32 by improperly charging the homeowner $1750.00 for septic maintenance and repair costs that should have been covered by annual common assessments.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Laws and unequal application of CC&R 4.32 regarding septic system costs.

The Board violated open meeting laws by holding an informal quorum discussion about septic policy prior to a formal meeting. Additionally, the Association improperly charged Petitioner $1750.00 for septic maintenance and repair, violating CC&R 4.32, which mandates such costs be included as part of Assessments allocated equally among all Lots.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent must reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee and henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-33-1804 and CC&R 4.32.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)
  • CC&R 4.32

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meeting Law, HOA Governing Documents, Assessment Dispute, Septic System Maintenance, Informal Meeting
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2102
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)
  • CC&R 4.32
  • CC&R 8.1
  • CC&R 8.2
  • CC&R 11.2
  • CC&R 15.1

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1015027.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (52.0 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1017891.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (53.2 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1024720.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (59.5 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1033722.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (47.5 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1057466.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (168.6 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)

Richard Busack v. The Cliffs Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H010-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-12-16
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard Busack Counsel —
Respondent The Cliffs Condominium Association Counsel Melissa Doolan

Alleged Violations

Article III, Section 3.07 of the Declaration of Establishment of Condominium and of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for The Cliffs Condominium

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the responsibility for maintaining the leaking pipe and the resulting damage fell under the owner of the unit served by the pipe (Unit 263) as defined by Article III, Section 3.07 of the CC&Rs, not the HOA.

Why this result: The ALJ’s interpretation of Article III, Section 3.07 found that the owner of Unit 263 was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the specific section of pipe that leaked, and therefore, the HOA was not liable for the resulting damage or requested reimbursement.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA responsibility for reimbursement for kitchen cabinet and countertop replacement and mold remediation/restoration after a leaking pipe.

Petitioner sought reimbursement of $8541.00 from the HOA for damages caused by Cat 3 water coming from a leaking toilet pipe located between the ceiling of unit 163 and the subfloor of unit 263. Petitioner alleged the pipe was the HOA's responsibility as it was in the inner walls and not 'open and unobstructed' as defined by Petitioner. The ALJ determined the pipe maintenance was the responsibility of the owner of Unit 263, not the HOA, based on the plain reading of Article III, Section 3.07.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • Article III, Section 3.07 (CC&Rs)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Responsibility, CC&Rs Interpretation, Pipe Maintenance, Water Damage Reimbursement, Owner Responsibility
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • Article III, Section 3.07 (CC&Rs)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H010-REL Decision – 1020439.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:14 (91.6 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)

M&T Properties LLC v. Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222060-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner M&T Properties LLC Counsel Lucas Thomas, Owner
Respondent Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association Counsel David Rivandi, Director

Alleged Violations

Section 6.7 of the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium and of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Kivas Uno Condominium

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the singular issue raised: Respondent (HOA) was found to be in violation of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs for failing to retain a duly licensed property management agent at the time the petition was filed. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with the CC&Rs moving forward. No civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Professional Management

Respondent (HOA) acknowledged that as of the date the Petition was filed (June 6, 2022), it did not retain or maintain a Managing Agent who is duly licensed by the State of Arizona as a property manager, which violated Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and was directed to comply with the requirements of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCNR violation, Property Management, Filing Fee Refund, No Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222060-REL Decision – 997254.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:33 (87.5 KB)

Roberta J Stevenson-McDemott v. Four Palms Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott Counsel —
Respondent Four Palms Homeowners Counsel Araceli Rodriguez

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, as she had not made a proper written request for the documents since 2019, as required by the statute.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to make a request for records in writing as required by A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Key Issues & Findings

Access to Association Financial and Other Records

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by denying her access and copies of various financial records dating back to 2016. The HOA argued they provided financial summaries and offered in-person review, noting Petitioner failed to make a proper written request.

Orders: Petition denied. Respondent is directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward upon a proper written request from Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Financial Records, Written Request Requirement, HOA Governance, Condominium Act
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 967350.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:53 (46.5 KB)

22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 982397.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:53 (99.3 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 Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the specific issue raised—a complaint about a recorded lien—was moot, as the lien had been released, and no current enforcement action regarding the disputed legal fees was pending.

Why this result: The ALJ determined that absent a recorded lien or pending enforcement action, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to address the reasonableness or accuracy of the disputed legal fees under the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1256).

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.

Petitioner sought to waive or adjust unreasonable collection fees and attorney fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) charged by the HOA related to a lien placed on their unit, which was later released because it was allegedly based on incorrect amounts.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA lien, Collection fees, Attorney fees, Statutory violation, Jurisdiction, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • 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 Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:44 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:44 (37.4 KB)

Aaron J Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121042-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-01
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Aaron J. Gragg Counsel —
Respondent Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc. Counsel Curtis Ekmark, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 12.4(a)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
CC&R 2.4(a)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's Petition, alleging four separate violations of Arizona statutes and CC&Rs (regarding ADR procedures, fraudulent violation assessment, failure to produce documents, and selective enforcement), was denied as the Petitioner failed to prove any of the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803, A.R.S. § 33-1805, or CC&R sections 2.4(a) and 12.4(a).

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to participate in Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to comply with CC&R Article 12.4(a) regarding ADR. The ALJ found that CC&R Article 12.4(a) excluded proceedings initiated by the Association to enforce architectural, design, and landscape controls from mandatory arbitration.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 12.4(a)

Fraudulent assessment of violations

Petitioner alleged Respondent assessed violations without observation. Evidence showed Petitioner’s landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Failure to produce documents

Petitioner requested documents establishing design review requirements and enforcement authority. The ALJ found Petitioner’s requests were actually legal questions posed to Respondent regarding the CC&Rs, not requests for specific documents or records.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Selective Enforcement / Similar Treatment

Petitioner alleged selective enforcement because he was required to provide a photograph to prove compliance. The ALJ found Respondent has required photographic verification from other similarly situated non-compliant homeowners since 2010.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA enforcement, Landscaping violation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Selective Enforcement, Document Request
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Section 12.4(a)
  • CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121042-REL Decision – 921903.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:57 (123.1 KB)

Jeffrey D Points v. Olive 66 Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-08
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeffrey D Points Counsel —
Respondent Olive 66 Condominium Association Counsel MacKenzie Hill

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding documents) and denied in part (no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding open meetings). Respondent was ordered to reimburse $500.00 of the filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 because evidence of improper notice was lacking and the topic discussed in executive session was likely covered by a statutory exemption.

Key Issues & Findings

Access to Association Records

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide certain requested 2021 invoices that were in existence at the time of the request within the statutory 10-day period.

Orders: Respondent must comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward. Petitioner reimbursed $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Open Board Meetings

Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding the March 25, 2021, board meeting, as the issue regarding notice was not established and the topic discussed (Landscaping Bid Review) likely fell under a statutory exemption.

Orders: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium association, document request, open meeting, executive session, invoices, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909631.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:35 (47.7 KB)

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909633.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:35 (117.7 KB)