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

Jerry Wheeler vs. Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1717036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $250.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jerry Wheeler Counsel —
Respondent Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was granted. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold the required annual meeting for several years. The Respondent was ordered to hold a meeting, refund the filing fee to the Petitioner, and pay a $250.00 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold required annual meeting

Petitioner, a homeowner, alleged the HOA had not held an annual meeting since April 1, 2014, violating A.R.S. § 33-1804(B). The unconverted evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold the statutorily required annual meeting for several years.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to hold a meeting in accordance with the planned community statutes as currently scheduled on December 28, 2017. Respondent was ordered to pay the filing fee to the Petitioner pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), and pay a $250.00 civil penalty to the planned community hearing office fund.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $250.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA annual meeting violation, statutory requirement, default judgment
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1717036-REL Decision – 586602.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:58:28 (65.3 KB)

18F-H1717036-REL Decision – 588549.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:58:28 (592.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1717036-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Wheeler v. Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the findings and orders from the case of Jerry Wheeler versus the Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). The central issue was the HOA’s failure to conduct annual meetings as legally required by Arizona state law. The petitioner, Jerry Wheeler, provided uncontested evidence that the HOA had not held a meeting for several years, specifically since his tenure began on April 1, 2014.

The case was complicated by the death of the HOA’s president prior to the hearing and the association’s subsequent failure to appoint a new representative or appear at the proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted the hearing in the respondent’s absence and ruled decisively in favor of the petitioner.

The final judgment, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate, found the Beaver Dam Estates HOA in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B). The HOA was ordered to hold a meeting on a specified date, reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee, and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 for the violation.

Case Overview

The matter was initiated by a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and was subsequently referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing and decision.

Case Detail

Information

Petitioner

Jerry Wheeler

Respondent

Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association

Case Number (OAH)

18F-H1717036-REL

Case Number (Dept. of Real Estate)

HO 17-17/036

Petition Filed

June 8, 2017

Hearing Date

September 5, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

September 6, 2017

Final Order Date

September 13, 2017

Presiding Judge

Suzanne Marwil, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Adopting Authority

Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

The petitioner’s case was built on the central allegation that the Beaver Dam Estates HOA had failed to comply with its statutory duty to hold annual meetings.

• Core Allegation: The HOA was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(B), which mandates that a members’ association meeting “shall be held at least once each year.”

• Petitioner Testimony: Jerry Wheeler testified that since moving into the community on April 1, 2014, the HOA had not held a single meeting. He also testified regarding his numerous efforts to compel the HOA president, Randy Hawk, to convene a meeting for the purpose of reviewing the association’s financial statements with homeowners.

• Supporting Evidence: The petitioner submitted numerous written statements from other homeowners within the Beaver Dam Estates community. These statements corroborated his testimony, confirming that no HOA meeting had been held for several years. This evidence was referred to as “Exhibit B” in the proceedings.

Respondent’s Actions and Procedural Failures

The respondent’s engagement with the legal process was minimal and ultimately ceased, leading to a judgment in its absence.

• Initial Response: The HOA’s then-president, Randy Hawk, initially responded to the petition by agreeing to hold a meeting.

• First Meeting Attempt: A meeting was scheduled for July 18, 2017. However, only about ten people attended, prompting Hawk to reschedule for December 28, 2017. A letter was sent to all members notifying them of the new date and the intent to hold an election for a new president and vice president.

• Death of Representative: The petitioner subsequently informed the Tribunal that Randy Hawk had passed away, leaving the HOA without a clear representative for the legal matter.

• Failure to Appoint New Representative: On August 16, 2017, the Tribunal issued an order, mailed to the respondent’s address of record, requesting that the HOA name a new representative. The HOA failed to do so.

• Failure to Appear: The respondent did not appear for the scheduled hearing on September 5, 2017, nor did it request to appear telephonically. After a 20-minute grace period, the ALJ proceeded with the hearing in the respondent’s absence.

Legal Framework and Conclusions of Law

The ALJ’s decision was based on a clear statutory requirement and the uncontested evidence presented by the petitioner. The burden of proof was on the petitioner, with the standard of proof being a preponderance of the evidence.

• Statutory Violation: The central finding was that the respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B). The pertinent text of the statute states:

• Key Conclusion: The ALJ determined that “The unconverted evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold the statutorily required annual meeting of Respondent for several years prior to the filing of the petition.”

• Recommended Action: Based on this conclusion, the ALJ stated that the respondent “should hold an annual meeting in accordance with the planned community statutes.”

Final Order and Penalties

The ALJ’s decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, making it a binding Final Order. The order mandated several actions by the respondent.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The petitioner’s petition is granted.

2. The respondent must hold a meeting in accordance with planned community statutes as scheduled on December 28, 2017.

3. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), the respondent shall pay the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

4. The respondent shall pay to the planned community hearing office fund a civil penalty of $250.00 for the violation.

This Final Order was declared a final administrative action, effective immediately upon service on September 13, 2017. The parties were notified of their right to apply for a rehearing within thirty days or to appeal the decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.


Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Dorinda M. Lang
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thompson

Alleged Violations

Article 11. Section 11.5 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish a violation of the Respondent's CC&Rs and recommended the petition be denied. The ALJ specifically noted the lack of proof that fees were inappropriate and that Petitioner failed to provide legal authority requiring equal benefit. The petition was denied, and the Respondent was not ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding disproportionate assessment fees

Petitioner alleged Respondent was in violation of its CC&Rs because Master HOA fees were disproportionately borne by existing homeowners and did not benefit the whole development equally. Petitioner failed to establish a violation because required evidentiary documents (plat attached as 'Exhibit B') were missing, and Petitioner offered no legal authority requiring fees to be equally beneficial or even-handed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not pay the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01 to the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&Rs, Master HOA, Assessment Fees, Common Areas, Burden of Proof, Rule Against Perpetuities
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 575166.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:10 (39.1 KB)

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 582189.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:11 (69.4 KB)

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 584918.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:11 (674.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717033-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key findings and legal proceedings in case number 17F-H1717033-REL, wherein Petitioner Jay Janicek filed a complaint against Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. The petition was ultimately denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), a decision formally adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA’s fee structure violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Janicek argued that payments made by his first-level association to a master association for common area expenses—most egregiously for a roadway loan—were improper because the benefits were not distributed equally among all homeowners.

The denial of the petition hinged on a critical failure of proof by the Petitioner. The CC&Rs define “Common Areas” by referencing a plat map (“Exhibit B”) that was not submitted into evidence by the Petitioner. Without this crucial document, it was impossible to prove that the fees collected by the HOA were for purposes outside the scope of the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority or provision within the governing documents requiring that association fees be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” A secondary argument regarding the “rule against perpetuities,” introduced post-hearing, was also addressed and dismissed by the ALJ as legally inapplicable to the matter.

Case Overview

The following table outlines the principal parties and details of the administrative hearing.

Case Detail

Information

Petitioner

Jay Janicek

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Respondent’s Counsel

Evan Thompson, Thompson Krone PLC

Respondent’s Representative

Steve Russo

Case Number

17F-H1717033-REL

Docket Number

17F-H1717033-REL

Hearing Date

July 12, 2017

Presiding Judge

Dorinda M. Lang, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Observers

John Shields, Margery and Mathew Janicek

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petition filed by Jay Janicek alleged that Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA was in violation of its governing CC&Rs. The central arguments presented were:

• Unequal Distribution of Costs and Benefits: The Petitioner contended that expenses paid by the Respondent association to the Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association (“Master HOA”) did not benefit all homeowners equally. The most “egregious” example cited was the payment toward a loan for a roadway within the master development.

• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner argued that this unequal cost burden was a direct violation of Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section stipulates:

• Discrepancy Among Associations: The Petitioner asserted that another first-level association within the master development receives more benefit from the common areas but does not pay into the Master HOA.

• Rule Against Perpetuities: In a post-hearing submission, the Petitioner introduced a new argument that a “rule against perpetuities” was at stake in the matter.

Adjudication and Findings of Fact

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof through a preponderance of the evidence.

Evidentiary Failure

The Petitioner’s case failed primarily due to a lack of sufficient evidence to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.

• Missing ‘Exhibit B’: The definition of “Common Areas” was essential to the case. According to Article 1, Section 1.6 of the CC&Rs, these areas are delineated on a plat that was supposed to be attached as “Exhibit B.”

• Critical Finding: The ALJ noted, “Unfortunately, there was no plat attached to the document that was offered into evidence and it was not to be found among the other exhibits. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to establish that Respondent’s fees pay for anything that is not provided for in the CC&Rs.”

• Petitioner’s Concession: The Petitioner did not dispute the Respondent’s argument that the Master HOA fees, including those for roads, were for Common Areas.

Lack of Legal Authority

The Petitioner’s core premise—that fees must be proportional to benefits received—was not substantiated by legal or documentary support.

• The ALJ found that the “Petitioner offered no legal authority that requires that all first level associations must pay the same into a master association or that all homeowners must receive the same benefit from or contribute the same amount (or even a proportionate share) to the common areas.”

• The argument that association fees were “disproportionately heavy” was not established to be a violation of any provision in the CC&Rs.

Post-Hearing Submissions

The record was held open until August 1, 2017, allowing for additional documentation from both parties.

• Petitioner (Exhibit 6): Submitted financial documentation, emails, and the argument concerning the rule against perpetuities.

• Respondent (Exhibit H): Submitted a Notice of Lien and attachments. This exhibit demonstrated that, regarding a lien for water services on properties not part of the Respondent HOA, the “Respondent’s homeowners are not responsible for it.”

Conclusions of Law and Final Decision

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the ALJ denied the petition, a decision later finalized by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Denial of Petition

• The primary conclusion of law was that the “Petitioner has not established that Respondent is in violation of its CC&Rs.”

• The payment for Common Areas was found to be in comportment with the CC&Rs.

Rejection of Key Arguments

• Equal Benefit: The ALJ explicitly concluded: “Petitioner has offered no legal authority or provision of the CC&Rs that requires the association fees to be even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.”

• Rule Against Perpetuities: While this argument was not part of the original petition, the ALJ addressed it to “lay a concern to rest.” The judge explained that the rule, which states that property ownership must vest within a lifetime plus 21 years, evolved from estate law and does not apply to HOA property sales where ownership vests immediately in the developer or a new owner. The judge concluded, “the rule against perpetuities does not apply to a homeowner’s association and it clearly does not apply in this matter.”

Timeline of Orders

1. July 12, 2017: An “Order Holding Record Open” was issued by ALJ Dorinda M. Lang.

2. August 14, 2017: The “Administrative Law Judge Decision” was issued, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

3. August 21, 2017: A “Final Order” was issued by Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially denying the petition.

Post-Decision Procedures

The Final Order, effective August 21, 2017, concluded the administrative action and outlined the subsequent options available to the parties.

• The order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed within 30 days of the service of the final order.

• A rehearing may be granted for the following causes:

1. Irregularity in the proceedings or any order or abuse of discretion that deprived a party of a fair hearing.

2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or the prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence.

4. Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.

7. The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

8. The findings of fact or decision is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.

• Parties may appeal the final administrative action by filing a complaint for judicial review.


Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Dorinda M. Lang
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thompson

Alleged Violations

Article 11. Section 11.5 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish a violation of the Respondent's CC&Rs and recommended the petition be denied. The ALJ specifically noted the lack of proof that fees were inappropriate and that Petitioner failed to provide legal authority requiring equal benefit. The petition was denied, and the Respondent was not ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding disproportionate assessment fees

Petitioner alleged Respondent was in violation of its CC&Rs because Master HOA fees were disproportionately borne by existing homeowners and did not benefit the whole development equally. Petitioner failed to establish a violation because required evidentiary documents (plat attached as 'Exhibit B') were missing, and Petitioner offered no legal authority requiring fees to be equally beneficial or even-handed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not pay the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01 to the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&Rs, Master HOA, Assessment Fees, Common Areas, Burden of Proof, Rule Against Perpetuities
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 575166.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:51:11 (39.1 KB)

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 582189.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:51:11 (69.4 KB)

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 584918.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:51:12 (674.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717033-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key findings and legal proceedings in case number 17F-H1717033-REL, wherein Petitioner Jay Janicek filed a complaint against Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. The petition was ultimately denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), a decision formally adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA’s fee structure violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Janicek argued that payments made by his first-level association to a master association for common area expenses—most egregiously for a roadway loan—were improper because the benefits were not distributed equally among all homeowners.

The denial of the petition hinged on a critical failure of proof by the Petitioner. The CC&Rs define “Common Areas” by referencing a plat map (“Exhibit B”) that was not submitted into evidence by the Petitioner. Without this crucial document, it was impossible to prove that the fees collected by the HOA were for purposes outside the scope of the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority or provision within the governing documents requiring that association fees be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” A secondary argument regarding the “rule against perpetuities,” introduced post-hearing, was also addressed and dismissed by the ALJ as legally inapplicable to the matter.

Case Overview

The following table outlines the principal parties and details of the administrative hearing.

Case Detail

Information

Petitioner

Jay Janicek

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Respondent’s Counsel

Evan Thompson, Thompson Krone PLC

Respondent’s Representative

Steve Russo

Case Number

17F-H1717033-REL

Docket Number

17F-H1717033-REL

Hearing Date

July 12, 2017

Presiding Judge

Dorinda M. Lang, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Observers

John Shields, Margery and Mathew Janicek

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petition filed by Jay Janicek alleged that Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA was in violation of its governing CC&Rs. The central arguments presented were:

• Unequal Distribution of Costs and Benefits: The Petitioner contended that expenses paid by the Respondent association to the Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association (“Master HOA”) did not benefit all homeowners equally. The most “egregious” example cited was the payment toward a loan for a roadway within the master development.

• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner argued that this unequal cost burden was a direct violation of Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section stipulates:

• Discrepancy Among Associations: The Petitioner asserted that another first-level association within the master development receives more benefit from the common areas but does not pay into the Master HOA.

• Rule Against Perpetuities: In a post-hearing submission, the Petitioner introduced a new argument that a “rule against perpetuities” was at stake in the matter.

Adjudication and Findings of Fact

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof through a preponderance of the evidence.

Evidentiary Failure

The Petitioner’s case failed primarily due to a lack of sufficient evidence to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.

• Missing ‘Exhibit B’: The definition of “Common Areas” was essential to the case. According to Article 1, Section 1.6 of the CC&Rs, these areas are delineated on a plat that was supposed to be attached as “Exhibit B.”

• Critical Finding: The ALJ noted, “Unfortunately, there was no plat attached to the document that was offered into evidence and it was not to be found among the other exhibits. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to establish that Respondent’s fees pay for anything that is not provided for in the CC&Rs.”

• Petitioner’s Concession: The Petitioner did not dispute the Respondent’s argument that the Master HOA fees, including those for roads, were for Common Areas.

Lack of Legal Authority

The Petitioner’s core premise—that fees must be proportional to benefits received—was not substantiated by legal or documentary support.

• The ALJ found that the “Petitioner offered no legal authority that requires that all first level associations must pay the same into a master association or that all homeowners must receive the same benefit from or contribute the same amount (or even a proportionate share) to the common areas.”

• The argument that association fees were “disproportionately heavy” was not established to be a violation of any provision in the CC&Rs.

Post-Hearing Submissions

The record was held open until August 1, 2017, allowing for additional documentation from both parties.

• Petitioner (Exhibit 6): Submitted financial documentation, emails, and the argument concerning the rule against perpetuities.

• Respondent (Exhibit H): Submitted a Notice of Lien and attachments. This exhibit demonstrated that, regarding a lien for water services on properties not part of the Respondent HOA, the “Respondent’s homeowners are not responsible for it.”

Conclusions of Law and Final Decision

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the ALJ denied the petition, a decision later finalized by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Denial of Petition

• The primary conclusion of law was that the “Petitioner has not established that Respondent is in violation of its CC&Rs.”

• The payment for Common Areas was found to be in comportment with the CC&Rs.

Rejection of Key Arguments

• Equal Benefit: The ALJ explicitly concluded: “Petitioner has offered no legal authority or provision of the CC&Rs that requires the association fees to be even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.”

• Rule Against Perpetuities: While this argument was not part of the original petition, the ALJ addressed it to “lay a concern to rest.” The judge explained that the rule, which states that property ownership must vest within a lifetime plus 21 years, evolved from estate law and does not apply to HOA property sales where ownership vests immediately in the developer or a new owner. The judge concluded, “the rule against perpetuities does not apply to a homeowner’s association and it clearly does not apply in this matter.”

Timeline of Orders

1. July 12, 2017: An “Order Holding Record Open” was issued by ALJ Dorinda M. Lang.

2. August 14, 2017: The “Administrative Law Judge Decision” was issued, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

3. August 21, 2017: A “Final Order” was issued by Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially denying the petition.

Post-Decision Procedures

The Final Order, effective August 21, 2017, concluded the administrative action and outlined the subsequent options available to the parties.

• The order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed within 30 days of the service of the final order.

• A rehearing may be granted for the following causes:

1. Irregularity in the proceedings or any order or abuse of discretion that deprived a party of a fair hearing.

2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or the prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence.

4. Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.

7. The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

8. The findings of fact or decision is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.

• Parties may appeal the final administrative action by filing a complaint for judicial review.


Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Dorinda M. Lang
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thompson

Alleged Violations

Article 11. Section 11.5 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish a violation of the Respondent's CC&Rs and recommended the petition be denied. The ALJ specifically noted the lack of proof that fees were inappropriate and that Petitioner failed to provide legal authority requiring equal benefit. The petition was denied, and the Respondent was not ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding disproportionate assessment fees

Petitioner alleged Respondent was in violation of its CC&Rs because Master HOA fees were disproportionately borne by existing homeowners and did not benefit the whole development equally. Petitioner failed to establish a violation because required evidentiary documents (plat attached as 'Exhibit B') were missing, and Petitioner offered no legal authority requiring fees to be equally beneficial or even-handed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not pay the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01 to the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&Rs, Master HOA, Assessment Fees, Common Areas, Burden of Proof, Rule Against Perpetuities
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 575166.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:37 (39.1 KB)

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 582189.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:37 (69.4 KB)

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 584918.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:37 (674.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717033-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key findings and legal proceedings in case number 17F-H1717033-REL, wherein Petitioner Jay Janicek filed a complaint against Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. The petition was ultimately denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), a decision formally adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA’s fee structure violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Janicek argued that payments made by his first-level association to a master association for common area expenses—most egregiously for a roadway loan—were improper because the benefits were not distributed equally among all homeowners.

The denial of the petition hinged on a critical failure of proof by the Petitioner. The CC&Rs define “Common Areas” by referencing a plat map (“Exhibit B”) that was not submitted into evidence by the Petitioner. Without this crucial document, it was impossible to prove that the fees collected by the HOA were for purposes outside the scope of the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority or provision within the governing documents requiring that association fees be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” A secondary argument regarding the “rule against perpetuities,” introduced post-hearing, was also addressed and dismissed by the ALJ as legally inapplicable to the matter.

Case Overview

The following table outlines the principal parties and details of the administrative hearing.

Case Detail

Information

Petitioner

Jay Janicek

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Respondent’s Counsel

Evan Thompson, Thompson Krone PLC

Respondent’s Representative

Steve Russo

Case Number

17F-H1717033-REL

Docket Number

17F-H1717033-REL

Hearing Date

July 12, 2017

Presiding Judge

Dorinda M. Lang, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Observers

John Shields, Margery and Mathew Janicek

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petition filed by Jay Janicek alleged that Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA was in violation of its governing CC&Rs. The central arguments presented were:

• Unequal Distribution of Costs and Benefits: The Petitioner contended that expenses paid by the Respondent association to the Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association (“Master HOA”) did not benefit all homeowners equally. The most “egregious” example cited was the payment toward a loan for a roadway within the master development.

• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner argued that this unequal cost burden was a direct violation of Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section stipulates:

• Discrepancy Among Associations: The Petitioner asserted that another first-level association within the master development receives more benefit from the common areas but does not pay into the Master HOA.

• Rule Against Perpetuities: In a post-hearing submission, the Petitioner introduced a new argument that a “rule against perpetuities” was at stake in the matter.

Adjudication and Findings of Fact

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof through a preponderance of the evidence.

Evidentiary Failure

The Petitioner’s case failed primarily due to a lack of sufficient evidence to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.

• Missing ‘Exhibit B’: The definition of “Common Areas” was essential to the case. According to Article 1, Section 1.6 of the CC&Rs, these areas are delineated on a plat that was supposed to be attached as “Exhibit B.”

• Critical Finding: The ALJ noted, “Unfortunately, there was no plat attached to the document that was offered into evidence and it was not to be found among the other exhibits. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to establish that Respondent’s fees pay for anything that is not provided for in the CC&Rs.”

• Petitioner’s Concession: The Petitioner did not dispute the Respondent’s argument that the Master HOA fees, including those for roads, were for Common Areas.

Lack of Legal Authority

The Petitioner’s core premise—that fees must be proportional to benefits received—was not substantiated by legal or documentary support.

• The ALJ found that the “Petitioner offered no legal authority that requires that all first level associations must pay the same into a master association or that all homeowners must receive the same benefit from or contribute the same amount (or even a proportionate share) to the common areas.”

• The argument that association fees were “disproportionately heavy” was not established to be a violation of any provision in the CC&Rs.

Post-Hearing Submissions

The record was held open until August 1, 2017, allowing for additional documentation from both parties.

• Petitioner (Exhibit 6): Submitted financial documentation, emails, and the argument concerning the rule against perpetuities.

• Respondent (Exhibit H): Submitted a Notice of Lien and attachments. This exhibit demonstrated that, regarding a lien for water services on properties not part of the Respondent HOA, the “Respondent’s homeowners are not responsible for it.”

Conclusions of Law and Final Decision

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the ALJ denied the petition, a decision later finalized by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Denial of Petition

• The primary conclusion of law was that the “Petitioner has not established that Respondent is in violation of its CC&Rs.”

• The payment for Common Areas was found to be in comportment with the CC&Rs.

Rejection of Key Arguments

• Equal Benefit: The ALJ explicitly concluded: “Petitioner has offered no legal authority or provision of the CC&Rs that requires the association fees to be even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.”

• Rule Against Perpetuities: While this argument was not part of the original petition, the ALJ addressed it to “lay a concern to rest.” The judge explained that the rule, which states that property ownership must vest within a lifetime plus 21 years, evolved from estate law and does not apply to HOA property sales where ownership vests immediately in the developer or a new owner. The judge concluded, “the rule against perpetuities does not apply to a homeowner’s association and it clearly does not apply in this matter.”

Timeline of Orders

1. July 12, 2017: An “Order Holding Record Open” was issued by ALJ Dorinda M. Lang.

2. August 14, 2017: The “Administrative Law Judge Decision” was issued, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

3. August 21, 2017: A “Final Order” was issued by Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially denying the petition.

Post-Decision Procedures

The Final Order, effective August 21, 2017, concluded the administrative action and outlined the subsequent options available to the parties.

• The order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed within 30 days of the service of the final order.

• A rehearing may be granted for the following causes:

1. Irregularity in the proceedings or any order or abuse of discretion that deprived a party of a fair hearing.

2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or the prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence.

4. Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.

7. The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

8. The findings of fact or decision is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.

• Parties may appeal the final administrative action by filing a complaint for judicial review.


Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Dorinda M. Lang
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thompson

Alleged Violations

Article 11. Section 11.5 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish a violation of the Respondent's CC&Rs and recommended the petition be denied. The ALJ specifically noted the lack of proof that fees were inappropriate and that Petitioner failed to provide legal authority requiring equal benefit. The petition was denied, and the Respondent was not ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding disproportionate assessment fees

Petitioner alleged Respondent was in violation of its CC&Rs because Master HOA fees were disproportionately borne by existing homeowners and did not benefit the whole development equally. Petitioner failed to establish a violation because required evidentiary documents (plat attached as 'Exhibit B') were missing, and Petitioner offered no legal authority requiring fees to be equally beneficial or even-handed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not pay the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01 to the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&Rs, Master HOA, Assessment Fees, Common Areas, Burden of Proof, Rule Against Perpetuities
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 575166.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:56 (39.1 KB)

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 582189.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:57 (69.4 KB)

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 584918.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:58 (674.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717033-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key findings and legal proceedings in case number 17F-H1717033-REL, wherein Petitioner Jay Janicek filed a complaint against Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. The petition was ultimately denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), a decision formally adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA’s fee structure violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Janicek argued that payments made by his first-level association to a master association for common area expenses—most egregiously for a roadway loan—were improper because the benefits were not distributed equally among all homeowners.

The denial of the petition hinged on a critical failure of proof by the Petitioner. The CC&Rs define “Common Areas” by referencing a plat map (“Exhibit B”) that was not submitted into evidence by the Petitioner. Without this crucial document, it was impossible to prove that the fees collected by the HOA were for purposes outside the scope of the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority or provision within the governing documents requiring that association fees be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” A secondary argument regarding the “rule against perpetuities,” introduced post-hearing, was also addressed and dismissed by the ALJ as legally inapplicable to the matter.

Case Overview

The following table outlines the principal parties and details of the administrative hearing.

Case Detail

Information

Petitioner

Jay Janicek

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Respondent’s Counsel

Evan Thompson, Thompson Krone PLC

Respondent’s Representative

Steve Russo

Case Number

17F-H1717033-REL

Docket Number

17F-H1717033-REL

Hearing Date

July 12, 2017

Presiding Judge

Dorinda M. Lang, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Observers

John Shields, Margery and Mathew Janicek

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petition filed by Jay Janicek alleged that Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA was in violation of its governing CC&Rs. The central arguments presented were:

• Unequal Distribution of Costs and Benefits: The Petitioner contended that expenses paid by the Respondent association to the Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association (“Master HOA”) did not benefit all homeowners equally. The most “egregious” example cited was the payment toward a loan for a roadway within the master development.

• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner argued that this unequal cost burden was a direct violation of Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section stipulates:

• Discrepancy Among Associations: The Petitioner asserted that another first-level association within the master development receives more benefit from the common areas but does not pay into the Master HOA.

• Rule Against Perpetuities: In a post-hearing submission, the Petitioner introduced a new argument that a “rule against perpetuities” was at stake in the matter.

Adjudication and Findings of Fact

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof through a preponderance of the evidence.

Evidentiary Failure

The Petitioner’s case failed primarily due to a lack of sufficient evidence to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.

• Missing ‘Exhibit B’: The definition of “Common Areas” was essential to the case. According to Article 1, Section 1.6 of the CC&Rs, these areas are delineated on a plat that was supposed to be attached as “Exhibit B.”

• Critical Finding: The ALJ noted, “Unfortunately, there was no plat attached to the document that was offered into evidence and it was not to be found among the other exhibits. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to establish that Respondent’s fees pay for anything that is not provided for in the CC&Rs.”

• Petitioner’s Concession: The Petitioner did not dispute the Respondent’s argument that the Master HOA fees, including those for roads, were for Common Areas.

Lack of Legal Authority

The Petitioner’s core premise—that fees must be proportional to benefits received—was not substantiated by legal or documentary support.

• The ALJ found that the “Petitioner offered no legal authority that requires that all first level associations must pay the same into a master association or that all homeowners must receive the same benefit from or contribute the same amount (or even a proportionate share) to the common areas.”

• The argument that association fees were “disproportionately heavy” was not established to be a violation of any provision in the CC&Rs.

Post-Hearing Submissions

The record was held open until August 1, 2017, allowing for additional documentation from both parties.

• Petitioner (Exhibit 6): Submitted financial documentation, emails, and the argument concerning the rule against perpetuities.

• Respondent (Exhibit H): Submitted a Notice of Lien and attachments. This exhibit demonstrated that, regarding a lien for water services on properties not part of the Respondent HOA, the “Respondent’s homeowners are not responsible for it.”

Conclusions of Law and Final Decision

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the ALJ denied the petition, a decision later finalized by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Denial of Petition

• The primary conclusion of law was that the “Petitioner has not established that Respondent is in violation of its CC&Rs.”

• The payment for Common Areas was found to be in comportment with the CC&Rs.

Rejection of Key Arguments

• Equal Benefit: The ALJ explicitly concluded: “Petitioner has offered no legal authority or provision of the CC&Rs that requires the association fees to be even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.”

• Rule Against Perpetuities: While this argument was not part of the original petition, the ALJ addressed it to “lay a concern to rest.” The judge explained that the rule, which states that property ownership must vest within a lifetime plus 21 years, evolved from estate law and does not apply to HOA property sales where ownership vests immediately in the developer or a new owner. The judge concluded, “the rule against perpetuities does not apply to a homeowner’s association and it clearly does not apply in this matter.”

Timeline of Orders

1. July 12, 2017: An “Order Holding Record Open” was issued by ALJ Dorinda M. Lang.

2. August 14, 2017: The “Administrative Law Judge Decision” was issued, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

3. August 21, 2017: A “Final Order” was issued by Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially denying the petition.

Post-Decision Procedures

The Final Order, effective August 21, 2017, concluded the administrative action and outlined the subsequent options available to the parties.

• The order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed within 30 days of the service of the final order.

• A rehearing may be granted for the following causes:

1. Irregularity in the proceedings or any order or abuse of discretion that deprived a party of a fair hearing.

2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or the prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence.

4. Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.

7. The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

8. The findings of fact or decision is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.

• Parties may appeal the final administrative action by filing a complaint for judicial review.


Mark Virden vs. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-27
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Mark Virden Counsel —
Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA Counsel Stewart F. Salwin

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.

Why this result: The decision to approve the tower was made by the Architectural Committee, which had independent authority under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811 regarding disclosure of compensation to the members acting as the board were found not to apply to the Committee's action.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors, Contracts, and Conflicts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 when it allowed the construction of an internet service tower after a board member's spouse paid the upfront fee in exchange for permanent free service (compensation). Petitioner argued this compensation required disclosure in an open meeting of the board before approval, which did not occur.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: conflict_of_interest, architectural_committee, board_authority, internet_tower, compensation, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:55 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:56 (736.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717027-REL


Briefing: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Case No. 17F-H1717027-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between homeowner Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the construction of an internet service tower on HOA common property. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona’s conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811), asserting that HOA officials received undisclosed compensation—lifelong free internet service—in exchange for approving the tower.

The case culminated in a definitive ruling against the Petitioner. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the ruling rested on the HOA’s unique governance structure. The decision to approve the tower was made not by the general “board of directors” (in this HOA, the members act as the board), but by the Architectural Committee, which was vested with independent authority to do so by the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs). Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the state law requiring conflict of interest disclosures before the board was not applicable to the committee’s action, rendering the Petitioner’s central argument invalid. The approval of the tower was deemed proper under the HOA’s governing rules.

Case Overview

Entity

Name / Description

Case Number

17F-H1717027-REL

Petitioner

Mark Virden

Respondent

Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Presiding ALJ

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Timeline of Key Events

• Circa 2017: The internet company AireBeam approached the HOA to install a service tower but did not secure enough subscribers to fund the project.

• Circa 2017: Lou Talarico, husband of an Architectural Committee member, offered to pay the tower’s upfront cost in exchange for free service for himself and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg. The Architectural Committee subsequently approved construction.

• March 23, 2017: Mark Virden filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a conflict of interest violation.

• June 7, 2017: A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• June 27, 2017: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• July 10, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The petition filed by Mark Virden centered on a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs contracts and conflicts of interest for HOA boards of directors.

Primary Allegation: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated state law by failing to disclose a conflict of interest related to the tower’s approval.

• The Conflict: Susan Talarico, a licensed realtor serving on the Architectural Committee, had a conflict because her husband, Lou Talarico, paid an upfront fee to the tower company. In exchange for this payment, the Talaricos and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg were to receive free internet service for as long as the tower remained operational.

• The Alleged Violation: According to the petition, this arrangement constituted compensation that should have been formally declared in an open meeting before any action was taken, as required by law. The petition states: “This law states that if a member of the board is receiving compensation, and has not declared that conflict in advance, then any contract entered into in violation of this law is void and unenforceable!”

• Perceived Inadequate Compensation: The Petitioner claimed the value of the free service far exceeded the cash contribution, stating, “…their contribution would only pay the equivalent of about 1-2 years of service for the two households.”

• Lack of Transparency: The petition alleges a refusal by the involved board members to provide details of their arrangement. When asked about the compensation, the Vice President reportedly stated, “it’s none of your business.”

Secondary Argument

The Petitioner alternatively argued that the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. Because the tower could provide service to individuals outside the HOA, it was not exclusively “for the benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, as stipulated by the governing documents.

Personal Grievance

The petition notes a direct personal impact on the Petitioner, stating that the tower was constructed within 150 feet of his front door and that he found it to be “a huge eye sore.”

Respondent’s Governance and Authority

The Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s defense rested on its specific governing documents and organizational structure, which were found to be central to the case’s outcome.

• Unconventional Board Structure: The HOA does not have a traditional, separate board of directors. Its Bylaws stipulate that “The affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

• Delegated Authority to Architectural Committee: The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants specific and independent power to its Architectural Committee. The CC&Rs state: “The Architectural Committee may permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

This structure meant that the authority to approve the tower resided with the committee, not the general membership acting as a board.

Adjudication and Final Ruling

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the final decision adopted by the Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner’s claims were ultimately rejected.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 27, 2017, denied the petition based on the following legal rationale:

• Architectural Committee’s Authority Was Dispositive: The ALJ found that the CC&Rs explicitly empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the communication tower. Crucially, the decision established that “Nothing in the CC&Rs requires that the Architectural Committee’s decision must be ratified by the members acting as a board.”

• Conflict of Interest Law Not Applicable: A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to actions and decisions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors.” Because the Architectural Committee acted under its own authority granted by the CC&Rs, its decision was not an action of the “board” as defined by the statute.

• Conclusion on Disclosure: The ALJ concluded that even if the free internet service was considered compensation (assuming arguendo), the arrangement “did not have to be disclosed to the members acting as a board.”

• Rejection of Secondary Argument: The ALJ dismissed the argument that the tower did not benefit the HOA, noting that the CC&R language “does not require that the satellite dish or other system may benefit exclusively all or portions of the HOA.”

The final conclusion of the tribunal was that “the Architectural Committee’s approval of the AireBeam tower was proper under Respondent’s governing documents.”

Final Order of the Department of Real Estate

On July 10, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that formally adopted the ALJ’s decision.

• Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was officially denied.

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties and represents a final administrative action.

• Avenues for Appeal: The Order noted that a party may request a rehearing within 30 days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, newly discovered evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious decision. Furthermore, a party may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.


Mark Virden vs. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-27
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Mark Virden Counsel —
Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA Counsel Stewart F. Salwin

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.

Why this result: The decision to approve the tower was made by the Architectural Committee, which had independent authority under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811 regarding disclosure of compensation to the members acting as the board were found not to apply to the Committee's action.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors, Contracts, and Conflicts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 when it allowed the construction of an internet service tower after a board member's spouse paid the upfront fee in exchange for permanent free service (compensation). Petitioner argued this compensation required disclosure in an open meeting of the board before approval, which did not occur.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: conflict_of_interest, architectural_committee, board_authority, internet_tower, compensation, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:50:49 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:50:50 (736.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717027-REL


Briefing: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Case No. 17F-H1717027-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between homeowner Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the construction of an internet service tower on HOA common property. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona’s conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811), asserting that HOA officials received undisclosed compensation—lifelong free internet service—in exchange for approving the tower.

The case culminated in a definitive ruling against the Petitioner. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the ruling rested on the HOA’s unique governance structure. The decision to approve the tower was made not by the general “board of directors” (in this HOA, the members act as the board), but by the Architectural Committee, which was vested with independent authority to do so by the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs). Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the state law requiring conflict of interest disclosures before the board was not applicable to the committee’s action, rendering the Petitioner’s central argument invalid. The approval of the tower was deemed proper under the HOA’s governing rules.

Case Overview

Entity

Name / Description

Case Number

17F-H1717027-REL

Petitioner

Mark Virden

Respondent

Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Presiding ALJ

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Timeline of Key Events

• Circa 2017: The internet company AireBeam approached the HOA to install a service tower but did not secure enough subscribers to fund the project.

• Circa 2017: Lou Talarico, husband of an Architectural Committee member, offered to pay the tower’s upfront cost in exchange for free service for himself and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg. The Architectural Committee subsequently approved construction.

• March 23, 2017: Mark Virden filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a conflict of interest violation.

• June 7, 2017: A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• June 27, 2017: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• July 10, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The petition filed by Mark Virden centered on a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs contracts and conflicts of interest for HOA boards of directors.

Primary Allegation: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated state law by failing to disclose a conflict of interest related to the tower’s approval.

• The Conflict: Susan Talarico, a licensed realtor serving on the Architectural Committee, had a conflict because her husband, Lou Talarico, paid an upfront fee to the tower company. In exchange for this payment, the Talaricos and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg were to receive free internet service for as long as the tower remained operational.

• The Alleged Violation: According to the petition, this arrangement constituted compensation that should have been formally declared in an open meeting before any action was taken, as required by law. The petition states: “This law states that if a member of the board is receiving compensation, and has not declared that conflict in advance, then any contract entered into in violation of this law is void and unenforceable!”

• Perceived Inadequate Compensation: The Petitioner claimed the value of the free service far exceeded the cash contribution, stating, “…their contribution would only pay the equivalent of about 1-2 years of service for the two households.”

• Lack of Transparency: The petition alleges a refusal by the involved board members to provide details of their arrangement. When asked about the compensation, the Vice President reportedly stated, “it’s none of your business.”

Secondary Argument

The Petitioner alternatively argued that the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. Because the tower could provide service to individuals outside the HOA, it was not exclusively “for the benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, as stipulated by the governing documents.

Personal Grievance

The petition notes a direct personal impact on the Petitioner, stating that the tower was constructed within 150 feet of his front door and that he found it to be “a huge eye sore.”

Respondent’s Governance and Authority

The Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s defense rested on its specific governing documents and organizational structure, which were found to be central to the case’s outcome.

• Unconventional Board Structure: The HOA does not have a traditional, separate board of directors. Its Bylaws stipulate that “The affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

• Delegated Authority to Architectural Committee: The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants specific and independent power to its Architectural Committee. The CC&Rs state: “The Architectural Committee may permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

This structure meant that the authority to approve the tower resided with the committee, not the general membership acting as a board.

Adjudication and Final Ruling

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the final decision adopted by the Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner’s claims were ultimately rejected.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 27, 2017, denied the petition based on the following legal rationale:

• Architectural Committee’s Authority Was Dispositive: The ALJ found that the CC&Rs explicitly empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the communication tower. Crucially, the decision established that “Nothing in the CC&Rs requires that the Architectural Committee’s decision must be ratified by the members acting as a board.”

• Conflict of Interest Law Not Applicable: A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to actions and decisions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors.” Because the Architectural Committee acted under its own authority granted by the CC&Rs, its decision was not an action of the “board” as defined by the statute.

• Conclusion on Disclosure: The ALJ concluded that even if the free internet service was considered compensation (assuming arguendo), the arrangement “did not have to be disclosed to the members acting as a board.”

• Rejection of Secondary Argument: The ALJ dismissed the argument that the tower did not benefit the HOA, noting that the CC&R language “does not require that the satellite dish or other system may benefit exclusively all or portions of the HOA.”

The final conclusion of the tribunal was that “the Architectural Committee’s approval of the AireBeam tower was proper under Respondent’s governing documents.”

Final Order of the Department of Real Estate

On July 10, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that formally adopted the ALJ’s decision.

• Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was officially denied.

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties and represents a final administrative action.

• Avenues for Appeal: The Order noted that a party may request a rehearing within 30 days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, newly discovered evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious decision. Furthermore, a party may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.


Mark Virden vs. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-27
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Mark Virden Counsel —
Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA Counsel Stewart F. Salwin

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.

Why this result: The decision to approve the tower was made by the Architectural Committee, which had independent authority under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811 regarding disclosure of compensation to the members acting as the board were found not to apply to the Committee's action.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors, Contracts, and Conflicts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 when it allowed the construction of an internet service tower after a board member's spouse paid the upfront fee in exchange for permanent free service (compensation). Petitioner argued this compensation required disclosure in an open meeting of the board before approval, which did not occur.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: conflict_of_interest, architectural_committee, board_authority, internet_tower, compensation, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:29 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:29 (736.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717027-REL


Briefing: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Case No. 17F-H1717027-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between homeowner Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the construction of an internet service tower on HOA common property. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona’s conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811), asserting that HOA officials received undisclosed compensation—lifelong free internet service—in exchange for approving the tower.

The case culminated in a definitive ruling against the Petitioner. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the ruling rested on the HOA’s unique governance structure. The decision to approve the tower was made not by the general “board of directors” (in this HOA, the members act as the board), but by the Architectural Committee, which was vested with independent authority to do so by the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs). Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the state law requiring conflict of interest disclosures before the board was not applicable to the committee’s action, rendering the Petitioner’s central argument invalid. The approval of the tower was deemed proper under the HOA’s governing rules.

Case Overview

Entity

Name / Description

Case Number

17F-H1717027-REL

Petitioner

Mark Virden

Respondent

Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Presiding ALJ

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Timeline of Key Events

• Circa 2017: The internet company AireBeam approached the HOA to install a service tower but did not secure enough subscribers to fund the project.

• Circa 2017: Lou Talarico, husband of an Architectural Committee member, offered to pay the tower’s upfront cost in exchange for free service for himself and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg. The Architectural Committee subsequently approved construction.

• March 23, 2017: Mark Virden filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a conflict of interest violation.

• June 7, 2017: A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• June 27, 2017: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• July 10, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The petition filed by Mark Virden centered on a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs contracts and conflicts of interest for HOA boards of directors.

Primary Allegation: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated state law by failing to disclose a conflict of interest related to the tower’s approval.

• The Conflict: Susan Talarico, a licensed realtor serving on the Architectural Committee, had a conflict because her husband, Lou Talarico, paid an upfront fee to the tower company. In exchange for this payment, the Talaricos and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg were to receive free internet service for as long as the tower remained operational.

• The Alleged Violation: According to the petition, this arrangement constituted compensation that should have been formally declared in an open meeting before any action was taken, as required by law. The petition states: “This law states that if a member of the board is receiving compensation, and has not declared that conflict in advance, then any contract entered into in violation of this law is void and unenforceable!”

• Perceived Inadequate Compensation: The Petitioner claimed the value of the free service far exceeded the cash contribution, stating, “…their contribution would only pay the equivalent of about 1-2 years of service for the two households.”

• Lack of Transparency: The petition alleges a refusal by the involved board members to provide details of their arrangement. When asked about the compensation, the Vice President reportedly stated, “it’s none of your business.”

Secondary Argument

The Petitioner alternatively argued that the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. Because the tower could provide service to individuals outside the HOA, it was not exclusively “for the benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, as stipulated by the governing documents.

Personal Grievance

The petition notes a direct personal impact on the Petitioner, stating that the tower was constructed within 150 feet of his front door and that he found it to be “a huge eye sore.”

Respondent’s Governance and Authority

The Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s defense rested on its specific governing documents and organizational structure, which were found to be central to the case’s outcome.

• Unconventional Board Structure: The HOA does not have a traditional, separate board of directors. Its Bylaws stipulate that “The affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

• Delegated Authority to Architectural Committee: The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants specific and independent power to its Architectural Committee. The CC&Rs state: “The Architectural Committee may permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

This structure meant that the authority to approve the tower resided with the committee, not the general membership acting as a board.

Adjudication and Final Ruling

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the final decision adopted by the Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner’s claims were ultimately rejected.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 27, 2017, denied the petition based on the following legal rationale:

• Architectural Committee’s Authority Was Dispositive: The ALJ found that the CC&Rs explicitly empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the communication tower. Crucially, the decision established that “Nothing in the CC&Rs requires that the Architectural Committee’s decision must be ratified by the members acting as a board.”

• Conflict of Interest Law Not Applicable: A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to actions and decisions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors.” Because the Architectural Committee acted under its own authority granted by the CC&Rs, its decision was not an action of the “board” as defined by the statute.

• Conclusion on Disclosure: The ALJ concluded that even if the free internet service was considered compensation (assuming arguendo), the arrangement “did not have to be disclosed to the members acting as a board.”

• Rejection of Secondary Argument: The ALJ dismissed the argument that the tower did not benefit the HOA, noting that the CC&R language “does not require that the satellite dish or other system may benefit exclusively all or portions of the HOA.”

The final conclusion of the tribunal was that “the Architectural Committee’s approval of the AireBeam tower was proper under Respondent’s governing documents.”

Final Order of the Department of Real Estate

On July 10, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that formally adopted the ALJ’s decision.

• Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was officially denied.

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties and represents a final administrative action.

• Avenues for Appeal: The Order noted that a party may request a rehearing within 30 days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, newly discovered evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious decision. Furthermore, a party may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.


Mark Virden vs. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-27
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Mark Virden Counsel —
Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA Counsel Stewart F. Salwin

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.

Why this result: The decision to approve the tower was made by the Architectural Committee, which had independent authority under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811 regarding disclosure of compensation to the members acting as the board were found not to apply to the Committee's action.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors, Contracts, and Conflicts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 when it allowed the construction of an internet service tower after a board member's spouse paid the upfront fee in exchange for permanent free service (compensation). Petitioner argued this compensation required disclosure in an open meeting of the board before approval, which did not occur.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: conflict_of_interest, architectural_committee, board_authority, internet_tower, compensation, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:42 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:42 (736.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717027-REL


Briefing: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Case No. 17F-H1717027-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between homeowner Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the construction of an internet service tower on HOA common property. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona’s conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811), asserting that HOA officials received undisclosed compensation—lifelong free internet service—in exchange for approving the tower.

The case culminated in a definitive ruling against the Petitioner. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the ruling rested on the HOA’s unique governance structure. The decision to approve the tower was made not by the general “board of directors” (in this HOA, the members act as the board), but by the Architectural Committee, which was vested with independent authority to do so by the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs). Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the state law requiring conflict of interest disclosures before the board was not applicable to the committee’s action, rendering the Petitioner’s central argument invalid. The approval of the tower was deemed proper under the HOA’s governing rules.

Case Overview

Entity

Name / Description

Case Number

17F-H1717027-REL

Petitioner

Mark Virden

Respondent

Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Presiding ALJ

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Timeline of Key Events

• Circa 2017: The internet company AireBeam approached the HOA to install a service tower but did not secure enough subscribers to fund the project.

• Circa 2017: Lou Talarico, husband of an Architectural Committee member, offered to pay the tower’s upfront cost in exchange for free service for himself and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg. The Architectural Committee subsequently approved construction.

• March 23, 2017: Mark Virden filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a conflict of interest violation.

• June 7, 2017: A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• June 27, 2017: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• July 10, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The petition filed by Mark Virden centered on a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs contracts and conflicts of interest for HOA boards of directors.

Primary Allegation: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated state law by failing to disclose a conflict of interest related to the tower’s approval.

• The Conflict: Susan Talarico, a licensed realtor serving on the Architectural Committee, had a conflict because her husband, Lou Talarico, paid an upfront fee to the tower company. In exchange for this payment, the Talaricos and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg were to receive free internet service for as long as the tower remained operational.

• The Alleged Violation: According to the petition, this arrangement constituted compensation that should have been formally declared in an open meeting before any action was taken, as required by law. The petition states: “This law states that if a member of the board is receiving compensation, and has not declared that conflict in advance, then any contract entered into in violation of this law is void and unenforceable!”

• Perceived Inadequate Compensation: The Petitioner claimed the value of the free service far exceeded the cash contribution, stating, “…their contribution would only pay the equivalent of about 1-2 years of service for the two households.”

• Lack of Transparency: The petition alleges a refusal by the involved board members to provide details of their arrangement. When asked about the compensation, the Vice President reportedly stated, “it’s none of your business.”

Secondary Argument

The Petitioner alternatively argued that the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. Because the tower could provide service to individuals outside the HOA, it was not exclusively “for the benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, as stipulated by the governing documents.

Personal Grievance

The petition notes a direct personal impact on the Petitioner, stating that the tower was constructed within 150 feet of his front door and that he found it to be “a huge eye sore.”

Respondent’s Governance and Authority

The Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s defense rested on its specific governing documents and organizational structure, which were found to be central to the case’s outcome.

• Unconventional Board Structure: The HOA does not have a traditional, separate board of directors. Its Bylaws stipulate that “The affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

• Delegated Authority to Architectural Committee: The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants specific and independent power to its Architectural Committee. The CC&Rs state: “The Architectural Committee may permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

This structure meant that the authority to approve the tower resided with the committee, not the general membership acting as a board.

Adjudication and Final Ruling

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the final decision adopted by the Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner’s claims were ultimately rejected.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 27, 2017, denied the petition based on the following legal rationale:

• Architectural Committee’s Authority Was Dispositive: The ALJ found that the CC&Rs explicitly empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the communication tower. Crucially, the decision established that “Nothing in the CC&Rs requires that the Architectural Committee’s decision must be ratified by the members acting as a board.”

• Conflict of Interest Law Not Applicable: A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to actions and decisions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors.” Because the Architectural Committee acted under its own authority granted by the CC&Rs, its decision was not an action of the “board” as defined by the statute.

• Conclusion on Disclosure: The ALJ concluded that even if the free internet service was considered compensation (assuming arguendo), the arrangement “did not have to be disclosed to the members acting as a board.”

• Rejection of Secondary Argument: The ALJ dismissed the argument that the tower did not benefit the HOA, noting that the CC&R language “does not require that the satellite dish or other system may benefit exclusively all or portions of the HOA.”

The final conclusion of the tribunal was that “the Architectural Committee’s approval of the AireBeam tower was proper under Respondent’s governing documents.”

Final Order of the Department of Real Estate

On July 10, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that formally adopted the ALJ’s decision.

• Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was officially denied.

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties and represents a final administrative action.

• Avenues for Appeal: The Order noted that a party may request a rehearing within 30 days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, newly discovered evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious decision. Furthermore, a party may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.


Linda Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717029-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-18
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Linda Haderli Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. Counsel Samuel E. Arrowsmith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA lacked authority to impose discipline (removal as club president and 24-month ban on holding office) under governing documents.

Petitioner alleged Respondent lacked authority pursuant to governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and preclude her from serving as any officer for 24 months as purported discipline. The Tribunal concluded the Board’s decision was in excess of its authority because Respondent did not establish that removal and the prohibition on holding office were remedies available under the governing documents.

Orders: Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party; Respondent's imposed discipline was quashed; Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R’s Section 14.2
  • CC&R’s Section 15.2B
  • CC&R’s Section 12.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: discipline, governing documents, authority, club officer removal, homeowner vs HOA
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R’s Section 14.2
  • CC&R’s Section 15.2B
  • CC&R’s Section 12.2

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 570378.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:00 (84.2 KB)

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 575026.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:00 (700.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717029-REL


Briefing Document: Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between resident Linda Haderli (Petitioner) and the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s decision to remove Ms. Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club and to bar her from holding any club office for 24 months as a disciplinary measure.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Haderli. The central finding was that the disciplinary action imposed by the Association was in excess of the authority granted by its own governing documents (CC&Rs). While the Association’s rules allowed for remedies such as financial assessments up to $500 or the suspension of common area use rights for violations, they did not provide for the removal of a resident from an elected club office. Consequently, the ALJ ordered that Ms. Haderli be deemed the prevailing party, the Association’s disciplinary action be quashed, and the Association reimburse Ms. Haderli’s $500 filing fee. This decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Linda Haderli

◦ Respondent: Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., a homeowners association in Mesa, Arizona.

• Legal Venue: The Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 17F-H1717029-REL

• Hearing Date: May 30, 2017

• Core Issue: On March 28, 2017, Ms. Haderli filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She alleged that the Association lacked the authority under its governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and to prohibit her from serving in any club officer position for two years as a form of discipline.

The Association’s Disciplinary Action and Justification

The Association took disciplinary action against Ms. Haderli and provided three specific reasons for its decision in a formal letter:

1. Challenging Board Policies: The letter accused Ms. Haderli of harassing Association employees and circumventing established systems designed to implement Association policies.

2. Improper Officer Representation: The Association stated that Ms. Haderli had permitted Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor” to the Pickleball Club, a position not recognized as an official Officer position in the Pickleball By-Laws.

3. Unauthorized Representation to External Entities: The Association claimed Ms. Haderli had represented herself to the City of Mesa and SRP (Salt River Project) as having the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association, which had not been granted by the Board of Directors.

Analysis of Allegations and Testimony

During the May 30, 2017 hearing, testimony was presented by both parties regarding the three justifications for the disciplinary action.

Allegation 1: Harassment of an Association Employee

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria testified that on January 4, 2017, Ms. Haderli had a “contentious interaction” with an employee, Barb Putnam. According to some observers, Ms. Haderli was yelling. The following day, Ms. Putnam was hospitalized with a hemorrhage in her eye. Ms. Candelaria “theorized” that the stress from the encounter caused the medical issue. She collected written statements from observers but did not speak with Ms. Haderli about the incident, citing confidentiality concerns.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, explaining that her hearing loss sometimes causes her to speak louder than intended, which can be misinterpreted as yelling. She stated she was attempting to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that Ms. Putnam was uncooperative. Ms. Haderli testified she was unaware of the harassment accusation until reviewing exhibits for the hearing with her attorney.

Allegation 2: Improper Officer Representation (Joyce Wooton)

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli testified that Ms. Wooton was already serving as an advisor to the Pickleball Club when Ms. Haderli was elected Vice President, a full year before she became President on March 1, 2016.

Allegation 3: Unauthorized Representation to External Entities

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria stated that while the Pickleball Club was exploring a project to build a small structure, Ms. Haderli contacted the City of Mesa and SRP directly, representing herself as acting on behalf of the Association. This continued even after Ms. Haderli was advised to work through the project’s architect for technical questions.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied representing herself as having authority to act for the Association. She testified that her intent was merely to gather background information to be better informed about the project. She initially did not want to provide her name or address to the entities for fear of appearing to act in an official capacity, only providing the address when required because regulations differ by city area.

Governing Documents and Permitted Remedies

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the specific remedies available to the Association as outlined in its governing documents, the CC&Rs. The Association clarified that the discipline was imposed on Ms. Haderli in her capacity as a resident who violated community rules, not as a disciplinary action against the Pickleball Club itself.

The following sections of the CC&Rs were cited as relevant:

CC&R Section

Description

Authorized Remedy

Section 14.2

Employee Abuse: Prohibits physical or verbal harassment of employees by residents.

Enforcement as an “Other Violation” under Section 15.2B.

Section 15.2B

Other Violations: Stipulates that such violations are subject to a financial penalty.

An assessment set by the Board of Directors, not to exceed $500.00.

Section 12.2

Suspension of Rights: Grants the Association the right to suspend an Owner’s rights for infractions.

Suspension of an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights.

Legal Conclusions and Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key conclusions of law that led to the final order.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner, Linda Haderli, bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted without the authority granted by its governing documents.

• Excess of Authority: The Respondent (the Association) “did not establish that removal as the Pickleball Club President and/or a prohibition of holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months is a remedy available under the governing documents.”

• Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Directors’ decision to impose this specific discipline was in excess of its authority.

Recommended and Final Order

Based on these conclusions, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order on June 18, 2017:

1. Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party: Linda Haderli was declared the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Discipline Quashed: The disciplinary action imposed by the Association against Ms. Haderli was ordered to be quashed.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to pay Ms. Haderli her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

On June 21, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety. This order became a final administrative action, effective immediately.