Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1803

Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-07
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keith A. Shadden Counsel —
Respondent Las Brisas Community Association Counsel Emily Cooper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 5.10 & Article 5.12 of CC&Rs (Las Brisas Community Association)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing the HOA used incorrect CC&R sections for the violation concerning reflective material on garage door glass cutouts. The ALJ concluded that the plain meaning of "window" in CC&R Section 5.10 applies to any transparent opening and does not exclude garages.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by using incorrect sections for the violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts.

Key Issues & Findings

Allegation that Respondent is using incorrect CC&R section (5.10) to create violation for garage door glass cutouts which fall under section 5.12.

Petitioner alleged the HOA misapplied CC&R Section 5.10 (Windows) to enforce a violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts, asserting that Section 5.10 was not intended to cover garage doors as they are addressed under Section 5.12.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Window Restriction, Garage Door, Reflective Material, Planned Communities Act, Burden of Proof, Violation Notice
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Decision Documents

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1314210.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:25 (45.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316546.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:26 (59.6 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325514.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:26 (71.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325661.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:26 (88.3 KB)

Millard C. and Samantha Finch v. Mountain Gate Community aka Copper

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H017-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-03
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Samantha and Millard C. Finch Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioners' Dispute Petition, concluding that Petitioners failed to prove any errors in the administration or rejection of evidence or errors of law during the previous administrative hearing, which was the sole basis for the rehearing.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of proof to show procedural or evidentiary errors as required by the limited scope of the rehearing granted by the Department of Real Estate. Arguments focused on disagreement with the findings of the original decision, which were outside the scope.

Key Issues & Findings

Error in the administration or rejection of evidence or other errors occurring during the proceeding

The rehearing was limited to determining if errors occurred during the previous proceeding regarding the admission or rejection of evidence or errors of law. Petitioners alleged improper use of A.R.S. § 33-1807 by the original ALJ and claimed their evidence was rejected or not considered. The ALJ found that Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioners' Dispute Petition is Dismissed. The underlying ALJ Decision is binding.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 33-1807
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Procedural Error, Evidence, A.R.S. 33-1807
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1807
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Decision Documents

25F-H017-REL Decision – 1316094.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:41 (51.5 KB)

25F-H017-REL Decision – 1325522.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:41 (120.7 KB)

Keystone Owners Association V. Bernadette M. Bennett

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-12-09
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keystone Owners Association Counsel Erica L. Mortenson
Respondent Bernadette M. Bennett Counsel Thomas A. Walcott

Alleged Violations

Mountain Park Association CC&Rs Art. IV, Sec. 2; Keystone CC&Rs Art. V, Sec. 5.19; Rules (35% Frontage Limit)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed. The Respondent (Homeowner) was found in violation of Governing Documents for installing an unapproved driveway extension that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the $1,500.00 filing fee and comply with all Governing Documents henceforth. No civil penalty was levied.

Why this result: Respondent failed to obtain prior written approval for the driveway alteration and failed to prove the affirmative defense of laches.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Driveway Extension Exceeding 35% of Total Yard Frontage Area

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by installing a driveway extension exceeding 35% of the total yard frontage area without prior written approval. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred and the Respondent failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $1,500.00 for the filing fee and comply henceforth with the Governing Documents.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, ARC, Driveway, Frontage Area, CC&Rs, Laches
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Decision Documents

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1159036.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (52.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180542.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (49.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180545.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198622.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (50.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198623.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1225107.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (52.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227639.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (48.7 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227642.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (5.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1230660.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (45.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1241815.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (48.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1250037.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (113.0 KB)

Kenneth M. Halal v. Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-06-26
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kenneth M. Halal Counsel —
Respondent Eagle Crest Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Alexandra M. Kurtyka

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1804; Bylaws Article 2.3, 5.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's request was dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the restriction of access to the Townsquare forum was a unilateral decision made by Townsquare, a separate legal entity. The cited statutes and Bylaws regarding due process for violations of Project Documents were found inapplicable because Townsquare and its Terms of Use are not governed by the HOA’s Project Documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the cited statutes and bylaw provisions were found inapplicable since the Townsquare platform is not owned or managed by the HOA, and the restriction was imposed solely by Townsquare based on its Terms of Use, which are not HOA Project Documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Due process violation regarding removal from HOA website forum (Townsquare Forum)

Petitioner alleged violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 33-1804, and Bylaws 2.3 and 5.2, arguing the HOA failed to provide due process when restricting his access to the Townsquare online forum. The ALJ found the cited provisions inapplicable as the restriction was imposed solely by Townsquare, a third-party entity whose Terms of Use are not Project Documents.

Orders: Petition dismissed because Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the cited statutes or Bylaws.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Bylaws Article 2.3
  • Bylaws Section 5.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Due Process, Online Forum, Townsquare, Third-Party Vendor, Project Documents
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • Bylaws Article 2.3
  • Bylaws Section 5.2
  • CC&Rs Article 1 Section 1.36
  • Townsquare Terms of Use

Decision Documents

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1183806.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:07 (61.3 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1186944.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:07 (45.9 KB)

24F-H045-REL Decision – 1193702.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:08 (171.0 KB)

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Decision Documents

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1124651.pdf

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

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1133120.pdf

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

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1134423.pdf

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

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139633.pdf

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

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139646.pdf

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

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1157271.pdf

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

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1168680.pdf

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

John R Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H058-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-04
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R. Ashley Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC Counsel James Brewer, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner John R. Ashley's petition against Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. The ALJ found that the HOA did not violate the Bylaws regarding the minimum number of directors because compliance was impossible due to lack of member interest, and the issue was subsequently moot as the board currently met the minimum requirement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut Respondent’s claim that it actively sought a third board member. The Respondent was exonerated under the legal doctrine of impossibility of performance, and the current compliance with the three-member minimum rendered the dispute moot.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation regarding the minimum number of Board Directors

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws by having only two Board Directors dismiss and order a redo of the 1/9/2023 Annual Membership Meeting for 3/7/2023, arguing that three directors were required to properly handle the Association’s affairs.

Orders: The petition is dismissed. Respondent was unable to comply with the Bylaws requiring three directors due to impossibility (lack of member interest) while actively seeking compliance, and the dispute is currently moot as the board now has three or more members.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
  • Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: impossibility of performance, board structure, election dispute, bylaw violation, Planned Communities Act, mootness
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
  • Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Decision Documents

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1075520.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:09 (45.8 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078604.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:09 (47.9 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078608.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:10 (5.5 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1099484.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:10 (104.5 KB)

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1318
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.2
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 12.1 – 12.3
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

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

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1318
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.2
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 12.1 – 12.3
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1043132.pdf

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

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1048244.pdf

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

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049662.pdf

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

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049665.pdf

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

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049666.pdf

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

Anthony T Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony T Horn Counsel —
Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. Counsel Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) regarding the July 6, 2021 board meeting, and alternatively, any potential violation was cured by the proper notice and vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

Why this result: The ALJ concluded that the HOA properly notified members of the matter to be discussed at the July 6, 2021 meeting (tennis court upgrade/repair). Furthermore, any potential violation was cured by the explicit notice and second unanimous vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meetings/Notice/Ability to Speak (July 6, 2021 Board Meeting)

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804(F) because the July 6, 2021 agenda item 'Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair' did not adequately disclose the conversion of one tennis court into four pickleball courts. The ALJ found the initial notice was sufficient, and alternatively, any violation was cured by a subsequent November 9, 2021 meeting with explicit notice and a second vote.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARS 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Violation, Notice and Agenda Requirement, Cure Doctrine, Tennis Court Conversion, Pickleball
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 964044.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:30 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 970320.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:30 (58.5 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 974011.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:30 (58.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 982006.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:30 (54.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 982097.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:31 (7.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 994010.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:31 (108.6 KB)

Gregory Ehle V. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-11
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory Ehle Counsel —
Respondent Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency board meeting. The evidence established that no such meeting took place, and the statute does not require the Board to hold one.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as he conceded he did not know if an emergency meeting was held and could not provide legal authority showing that one was required.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation regarding an emergency meeting of the board members.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning the procedures for an emergency board meeting, specifically regarding a message sent out by the HOA's managing agent. The case proceeded on this single issue after Petitioner failed to pay the required additional filing fees for four total issues claimed.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not hold an emergency board meeting and was not required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) to hold one.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: emergency meeting, board of directors, failure to pay filing fee, burden of proof, dismissal, A.R.S. 33-1804
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964714.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:50 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964973.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:50 (18.9 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965150.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (44.4 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965339.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (40.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967084.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (55.7 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967089.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (45.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967102.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (7.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 973304.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (47.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 977404.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (50.3 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 982867.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (106.4 KB)

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

Article 6

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Maintain Common Area

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

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

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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