Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC. vs Matthew P. Petrovic

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC Counsel Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Respondent Matthew P. Petrovic Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.

Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision

Respondent Matthew Petrovic successfully requested rehearing of the original ALJ decision, alleging errors of law, improper evidence rejection, procedural irregularities, and that the findings were arbitrary or capricious regarding alleged HOA enforcement violations (landscape, paint, walkway denial).

Orders: The Commissioner granted the rehearing request based on grounds of error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law, and that the findings or decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Rehearing, Procedural Error, Arbitrary Decision, Selective Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Decision Documents

25F-H019-REL-RHG Decision – 1327903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:59:05 (2245.4 KB)

Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC. vs Matthew P. Petrovic

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC Counsel Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Respondent Matthew P. Petrovic Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.

Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision

Respondent Matthew Petrovic successfully requested rehearing of the original ALJ decision, alleging errors of law, improper evidence rejection, procedural irregularities, and that the findings were arbitrary or capricious regarding alleged HOA enforcement violations (landscape, paint, walkway denial).

Orders: The Commissioner granted the rehearing request based on grounds of error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law, and that the findings or decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Rehearing, Procedural Error, Arbitrary Decision, Selective Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1301437.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:36 (137.3 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1327903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:44 (2245.4 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1344402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:49 (57.4 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1353469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:53 (73.9 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1353471.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:58 (9.4 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1364458.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:02 (59.3 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1381249.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T07:31:56 (233.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H019-REL


Briefing Document: Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC vs. Matthew Petrovic

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key events, arguments, and rulings in the administrative dispute between homeowner Matthew Petrovic (Respondent) and the Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC (Petitioner), case number 25F-H019. Following an initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision on May 5, 2025, that found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party, the Respondent successfully petitioned for a rehearing.

The Respondent’s request for a rehearing was based on several grounds, including the misinterpretation of evidence regarding landscaping (Sago palms), insufficient evidence for a paint violation, and the arbitrary denial of a medically necessary walkway. Critically, Mr. Petrovic also cited significant procedural failures, alleging he was denied due process because he was misinformed about the nature of the original hearing and was thus unprepared and without legal counsel. He further claimed that the Petitioner’s witness provided false testimony and that key evidence was improperly excluded.

The Petitioner objected to the rehearing request, arguing solely that it was filed five days past the statutory 30-day deadline. Despite this objection, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing. The official order cites two specific grounds for granting the request: “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding,” and “That the findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” A subsequent continuance has moved the new hearing to October 22, 2025.

Case Overview and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute between a homeowner and his HOA that was initially adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The homeowner, Matthew Petrovic, appealed the initial decision to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Commissioner and was granted a new hearing.

Key Parties and Representatives:

Name/Entity

Affiliation

Petitioner

Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC

Attorney for Petitioner

Danny M. Ford, Esq.

Goodman Law Group

Respondent

Matthew P. Petrovic

Original ALJ

Velva Moses–Thompson

Office of Administrative Hearings

Deputy Commissioner

Mandy Neat

Arizona Department of Real Estate

ALJ for Continuance

Nicole Robinson

Office of Administrative Hearings

Timeline of Events:

Description

April 15, 2025

Original Hearing

The initial hearing on the dispute takes place.

May 5, 2025

Initial ALJ Decision

ALJ Velva Moses–Thompson issues a decision deeming the Petitioner the “prevailing party.” The decision includes a notice of a 30-day deadline to request a rehearing.

June 9, 2025

Rehearing Request Filed

Respondent Matthew Petrovic files a Dispute Rehearing Request with the ADRE Commissioner.

June 17, 2025

Objection to Rehearing

The Petitioner files a timely response, objecting to the rehearing request on the grounds that it was filed five days past the deadline.

July 3, 2025

Rehearing Granted

The ADRE Deputy Commissioner issues an “Order Granting Rehearing Request.”

July 23, 2025

Notice of Hearing Issued

A notice for the new hearing is issued (as referenced in a later document).

August 28, 2025

Continuance Granted

At the Respondent’s request, ALJ Nicole Robinson grants a continuance for the hearing.

October 22, 2025 (1:00 PM)

Scheduled Rehearing

The new, continued date for the rehearing is set.

Respondent’s Grounds for Rehearing Petition

Matthew Petrovic submitted a detailed petition outlining four primary areas of concern: the factual basis for the violations, procedural irregularities, false testimony, and a lack of due process.

1. Landscape Violation – Sago Palms

Mr. Petrovic argues the ruling that Sago palms are prohibited was incorrect and contradicted the evidence he presented.

• Evidence Submitted: He claims to have provided copies of the CC&Rs, documentation from the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA) classifying Sago palms as drought-tolerant plants and not true palm trees, and supporting witness testimony.

• Allegation of False Testimony: He asserts that the petitioner’s witness, identified as “Kevin,” gave false testimony under oath by stating the plants were not allowed, despite being presented with contrary evidence.

• New Evidence: Since the hearing, Mr. Petrovic states he has directly contacted AMWUA, which confirmed Sago palms are not in the palm family. He also notes that a current board member is willing to testify that the plants are permitted under the HOA’s governing documents.

2. Paint Condition Dispute

The petition contends that the ruling on his home’s paint being “in disrepair” was not supported by credible evidence.

• Conflicting Testimony: Three witnesses, including Mr. Petrovic, testified that the paint is in good condition. The individual who testified against the paint’s condition is reportedly no longer a sitting board member.

• Prior Approval and Inconsistent Reasoning: The exterior paint was reviewed and approved by the HOA board when he purchased the home. He alleges the board has demonstrated “inconsistent reasoning” by first claiming the violation was due to the paint needing to be two colors and later changing the reason to “disrepair.”

• Lack of Evidence from Petitioner: The petition states the board has not submitted objective proof, such as photographs or condition reports, to support its claim. Mr. Petrovic views these actions as potential “selective enforcement and retaliation” for his opposition to prior board actions.

3. Paver Walkway Denial

Mr. Petrovic claims the HOA has engaged in selective enforcement and bad faith by repeatedly denying his application for a modified walkway over the past three years.

• Medical Necessity: The walkway modifications are supported by a physician’s letter referencing chronic back and shoulder conditions.

• Selective Enforcement: Similar walkways have allegedly been approved for other homeowners, yet his requests have been denied without justification.

• Violation of CC&Rs: He argues the denial violates the community’s CC&Rs, which require the board to act reasonably and impartially, and that the denial could be viewed as discrimination.

4. Procedural and Due Process Concerns

A significant portion of the petition focuses on procedural failures that Mr. Petrovic believes deprived him of a fair hearing.

• Exclusion of Evidence: He states that key evidence relevant to his claim of selective enforcement was excluded from the hearing due to concerns about third-party privacy.

• Misunderstanding of Hearing Nature: Mr. Petrovic was “led to believe the meeting was a mediation session” and was unaware that binding decisions could result.

• Inability to Prepare Defense: Due to this misunderstanding and “financial hardship,” he was unable to retain legal counsel or properly prepare his case, which he argues “constitutes a denial of due process.”

Petitioner’s Objection to Rehearing

The Tatum Highlands Community Association, through its attorney Danny M. Ford of Goodman Law Group, filed an objection based on a single procedural argument.

• Untimely Filing: The Petitioner’s core argument is that the request for rehearing was time-barred.

◦ The decision was served on May 5, 2025.

◦ The 30-day statutory deadline, per A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, was June 4, 2025.

◦ Mr. Petrovic filed his request on June 9, 2025, five days late.

• Notice of Deadline: The objection notes that the deadline was “plainly written on the very Decision” and that being unrepresented is not an excuse for missing it.

• Requested Action: The Petitioner respectfully requested that the ALJ deny and dismiss the rehearing request as untimely.

Official Rulings and Current Status

Order Granting Rehearing Request

On July 3, 2025, Deputy Commissioner Mandy Neat of the Arizona Department of Real Estate issued an order granting Mr. Petrovic’s request. The order implicitly overruled the Petitioner’s objection regarding the filing deadline. The Commissioner cited two of the grounds available for granting a rehearing, which directly align with the arguments made in Mr. Petrovic’s petition:

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

2. That the findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Order Granting Continuance and Current Status

An order dated August 28, 2025, from Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson shows that the rehearing was continued at the request of the Respondent, Matthew Petrovic.

• The rehearing is officially scheduled to take place on October 22, 2025, at 1:00 PM.






Study Guide – 25F-H019-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H019-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Tatum Highlands Community Association, Inc. v. Matthew P. Petrovic”,
“decision_date”: “2025-12-26”,
“alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA violation hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The Petitioner (usually the HOA initiating the case) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the party filing the petition (the Petitioner) must prove that the other party violated the governing documents by a preponderance of the evidence.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”,
“topic_tags”: [
“burden of proof”,
“legal standards”,
“procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these hearings?”,
“short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the existence of a contested fact is more probable than not.”,
“alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence means ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.'”,
“legal_basis”: “In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal standards”,
“evidence”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can I install a driveway extension without prior HOA approval if neighbors have similar ones?”,
“short_answer”: “No. You must seek approval first.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if neighbors have similar features, failing to seek Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval prior to installation constitutes a violation of the CC&Rs. The presence of other potentially non-compliant homes does not excuse the failure to follow the approval process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Regardless, the record has established that Respondent did not seek ARC approval prior to installing the paver driveway extension. … As such, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R, Section 4.2.1.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.1”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural control”,
“driveways”,
“selective enforcement”
]
},
{
“question”: “What happens if I plant trees that the Architectural Committee specifically denied?”,
“short_answer”: “It is a violation of the governing documents.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Proceeding to install landscaping that was explicitly denied by the Architectural Review Committee establishes a clear violation of the community’s restrictions.”,
“alj_quote”: “In regard to the pigmy palm tree matter, the evidence clearly established that Respondent requested to plant two pigmy palm trees in his front yard, was denied by ARC, and planted them anyway. … Hence, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R Section 4.2.7.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7 / Design Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“landscaping”,
“architectural control”,
“violations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge rule on Fair Housing Act discrimination claims?”,
“short_answer”: “No, that venue cannot address Fair Housing Act claims.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to address claims regarding violations of the Fair Housing Act in these proceedings.”,
“alj_quote”: “In addition, Respondent’s claims regarding the Association violating the Fair Housing Act cannot be addressed in this venue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction limits”,
“topic_tags”: [
“jurisdiction”,
“discrimination”,
“Fair Housing Act”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the HOA fine me for ‘disrepair’ of paint if the paint is just old but not damaged?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if evidence shows it is not in disrepair.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If witness testimony establishes that the paint is not actually in disrepair, fines based on that allegation may be waived, even if the homeowner needs to eventually repaint to meet new color schemes.”,
“alj_quote”: “Also, the evidence established from firsthand witnesses that Respondent’s paint was not in disrepair. Therefore, Respondent should be given the opportunity to move forward with the ARC approval for painting his home and any fines he received in regards to the paint be waived.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7”,
“topic_tags”: [
“maintenance”,
“paint”,
“fines”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to reimburse the HOA’s filing fees if I lose the hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, typically for the issues on which the HOA prevails.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ may order the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees. In this case, the Respondent was ordered to pay fees proportional to the two issues the HOA won.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 in certified funds for the two issues.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“penalties”,
“fees”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to waive fines if a violation was not proven?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If the HOA fails to prove a specific violation (e.g., that paint was in disrepair), the ALJ may order the Association to waive fines related to that specific issue.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner waive all fines issued to Respondent in regards to the paint issue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“penalties”
]
}
]
}






Blog Post – 25F-H019-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H019-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Tatum Highlands Community Association, Inc. v. Matthew P. Petrovic”,
“decision_date”: “2025-12-26”,
“alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA violation hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The Petitioner (usually the HOA initiating the case) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the party filing the petition (the Petitioner) must prove that the other party violated the governing documents by a preponderance of the evidence.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”,
“topic_tags”: [
“burden of proof”,
“legal standards”,
“procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these hearings?”,
“short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the existence of a contested fact is more probable than not.”,
“alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence means ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.'”,
“legal_basis”: “In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal standards”,
“evidence”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can I install a driveway extension without prior HOA approval if neighbors have similar ones?”,
“short_answer”: “No. You must seek approval first.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if neighbors have similar features, failing to seek Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval prior to installation constitutes a violation of the CC&Rs. The presence of other potentially non-compliant homes does not excuse the failure to follow the approval process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Regardless, the record has established that Respondent did not seek ARC approval prior to installing the paver driveway extension. … As such, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R, Section 4.2.1.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.1”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural control”,
“driveways”,
“selective enforcement”
]
},
{
“question”: “What happens if I plant trees that the Architectural Committee specifically denied?”,
“short_answer”: “It is a violation of the governing documents.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Proceeding to install landscaping that was explicitly denied by the Architectural Review Committee establishes a clear violation of the community’s restrictions.”,
“alj_quote”: “In regard to the pigmy palm tree matter, the evidence clearly established that Respondent requested to plant two pigmy palm trees in his front yard, was denied by ARC, and planted them anyway. … Hence, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R Section 4.2.7.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7 / Design Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“landscaping”,
“architectural control”,
“violations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge rule on Fair Housing Act discrimination claims?”,
“short_answer”: “No, that venue cannot address Fair Housing Act claims.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to address claims regarding violations of the Fair Housing Act in these proceedings.”,
“alj_quote”: “In addition, Respondent’s claims regarding the Association violating the Fair Housing Act cannot be addressed in this venue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction limits”,
“topic_tags”: [
“jurisdiction”,
“discrimination”,
“Fair Housing Act”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the HOA fine me for ‘disrepair’ of paint if the paint is just old but not damaged?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if evidence shows it is not in disrepair.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If witness testimony establishes that the paint is not actually in disrepair, fines based on that allegation may be waived, even if the homeowner needs to eventually repaint to meet new color schemes.”,
“alj_quote”: “Also, the evidence established from firsthand witnesses that Respondent’s paint was not in disrepair. Therefore, Respondent should be given the opportunity to move forward with the ARC approval for painting his home and any fines he received in regards to the paint be waived.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7”,
“topic_tags”: [
“maintenance”,
“paint”,
“fines”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to reimburse the HOA’s filing fees if I lose the hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, typically for the issues on which the HOA prevails.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ may order the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees. In this case, the Respondent was ordered to pay fees proportional to the two issues the HOA won.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 in certified funds for the two issues.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“penalties”,
“fees”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to waive fines if a violation was not proven?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If the HOA fails to prove a specific violation (e.g., that paint was in disrepair), the ALJ may order the Association to waive fines related to that specific issue.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner waive all fines issued to Respondent in regards to the paint issue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“penalties”
]
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Danny Ford (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Attorney for Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC.
  • Kevin Hufnagel (board member)
    Tatum Highlands HOA Board
    Testified as a witness for Petitioner; served on Board of Directors.
  • Brian Lumpkey (board member)
    Tatum Highlands HOA Board
    Board Vice President; testified as witness/representative for Petitioner.
  • Elizabeth Lindlam (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Appeared for observation only.
  • Pat Diaz (board member)
    Tatum Highlands HOA Board
    Current President, previously on ARC Board.
  • Leanne Dilberto (property manager)
    Trestle Management
    Observed violations during paint audit; referred to as Leanne Dilberto, Lean Zioto, and Leand Alberto in sources.
  • Caitlyn Flores (staff)
    Trestle Management
    Denied ARC application.
  • Karen Vanderos (staff)
    Trestle Management
    Trestle Management employee.

Respondent Side

  • Matthew P. Petrovic (respondent)
    Appeared on behalf of himself; also testified.
  • Tracy Kennedy (witness)
    Listed as a potential witness for Respondent.
  • Todd Pearson (witness)
    Listed as a potential witness for Respondent.
  • Thomas KTO (witness)
    Listed as a potential witness for Respondent.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Administrative Law Judge for the initial decision.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Mandy Neat (Deputy Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
    Administrative Law Judge for the rehearing.
  • vnunez (staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in transmission for ADRE.
  • djones (staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in transmission for ADRE.
  • labril (staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in transmission for ADRE.
  • lrecchia (staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in transmission for ADRE.
  • gosborn (staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in transmission for ADRE.
  • dmorehouse (staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in transmission for ADRE.

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2

Analytics Highlights

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

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2
  • CC&Rs Rev. September 2022, Article 1, D.

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1252432.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:12 (52.5 KB)

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1275219.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:14 (128.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H021-REL


Briefing Document: Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Deatta M. Pleasants versus the Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (HOA). The core of the dispute centered on Ms. Pleasants’ allegation that the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair a common area culvert, which she claimed caused her property (Lot 185) to flood during a severe storm in July 2021.

The Respondent HOA countered that the drainage system was constructed in accordance with plans approved by Navajo County in the 1980s and has been properly maintained. The defense’s central arguments were that the July 2021 storm was a “100-year storm,” a weather event that exceeded the system’s “50-year storm” design capacity, and that Ms. Pleasants’ lot is situated within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway, where flooding during such an event is an expected occurrence.

Expert testimony from Dr. Zachary Barlo, a licensed civil engineer retained by the HOA, was pivotal. Dr. Barlo concluded that the drainage system was constructed in “general substantial conformance” with the original plans, is adequately maintained, and functions as designed. He testified that the feature Ms. Pleasants believed to be a disconnected culvert was, in fact, a roadway hatch pattern on the design plans. Crucially, he affirmed that flooding on Lot 185 would be expected during a major storm event due to its location in the floodway, regardless of culvert improvements.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Ms. Pleasants’ petition. The final decision held that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated the CC&Rs. The ruling affirmed that the HOA had maintained the system and that the flooding was a predictable consequence of an exceptionally severe storm impacting a property located in a high-risk flood zone.

1. Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H021-REL

• Petitioner: Deatta M. Pleasants, owner of Lot 185

• Respondent: Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

• Hearing Date: February 4, 2025

• Decision Date: February 20, 2025

2. Petitioner’s Allegation and Testimony

Core Claim

The Petitioner, Deatta M. Pleasants, alleged that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the revised 2022 CC&Rs. This section assigns the HOA the “full power and duty to maintain, repair and make necessary improvements in the COMMON AREA,” including underground culverts. The petition asserted, “The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.”

Central Arguments and Evidence

• The July 2021 Storm: The complaint originated from a single, severe storm in July 2021, which caused significant flooding on Petitioner’s property, Lot 185. Ms. Pleasants testified that while the storm was severe, she believes subsequent flooding was due to a malfunctioning drainage system, not the storm’s magnitude alone.

• Interpretation of Design Plans: Ms. Pleasants asserted that a double-line feature on the original circa 1986 drainage plans represented a proposed culvert. She believed this culvert was intended to connect a roadside ditch to the main regional drainage infrastructure but was improperly installed or left disconnected, causing a blockage and subsequent overflow.

• Observed Conditions: The Petitioner presented photographs from the 2021 storm depicting a 21-foot by 5-foot ditch in front of her property completely full of water and not draining. She argued this demonstrated a functional failure of the system.

• Rejection of Floodway Argument: Ms. Pleasants testified that she was “highly disappointed in the engineering report” and that her lot’s location within a FEMA flood plain “has absolutely nothing to do with the functionality and performance of this storm drain channel that is meant to keep from flooding.”

• HOA Responsibility: The Petitioner maintained that it is the HOA’s “fiduciary responsibility” to remedy the issue by connecting what she believes to be the main drain.

3. Respondent’s Position and Defense

Core Defense

The Respondent HOA’s position was that it has fulfilled its maintenance obligations under the CC&Rs and that the flooding was an unavoidable result of an extreme weather event impacting a property in a high-risk area.

Key Arguments and Testimony

• System Design and Approval: The drainage system was constructed in the mid-1980s based on plans approved by Navajo County. The design standards at the time, and currently, require the system to handle a 50-year storm event.

• Storm Severity: The July 2021 storm was characterized as an exceptional event, a “100-year storm,” that produced approximately three inches of rain within hours. This exceeded the design capacity of the drainage infrastructure.

• FEMA Floodway Designation: A critical element of the defense was that Lot 185 is located within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway. Testimony established this as the highest-risk flood category, specifically designated to allow for the unimpeded flow of floodwater.

• Maintenance Record: HOA President Sharon Seekins testified that the association periodically inspects and maintains the common area drainage system, including recent improvement projects on the Oklahoma Draw Wash. She noted that under the CC&Rs, individual lot owners are responsible for maintaining the drainage ditches directly in front of their properties.

• Lack of Other Complaints: Ms. Seekins testified that no other homeowners filed formal complaints about the drainage system’s performance following the July 2021 storm.

4. Expert Witness Testimony: Dr. Zachary Barlo

Dr. Zachary Barlo, a Senior Civil Engineer with a PhD, was retained by the Respondent to inspect the drainage system and provide an expert opinion. His testimony was a cornerstone of the Respondent’s case.

Credentials and Experience

• Position: Senior Engineer at Ironside Engineering Development, Inc.

• Education: PhD and Master of Science in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University; undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech.

• Licensure: Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Expertise: Extensive experience with drainage systems, Navajo County codes, and FEMA regulations.

Inspection and Analysis

Dr. Barlo conducted two field visits in June and December of 2024. His process involved:

1. Reviewing the original circa 1986 construction and drainage plans.

2. Conducting a visual and physical inspection of the as-built infrastructure near Lot 185, including measuring culverts.

3. Speaking with both Ms. Pleasants and HOA representatives to understand the concerns.

Key Findings and Professional Opinion

Finding Category

Dr. Barlo’s Testimony and Conclusions

Conformance with Plans

The existing infrastructure was found to be in “general substantial conformance with the original plan.” Notably, a 24-inch pipe was installed where an 18-inch pipe was specified, which he described as a “betterment to the design” as it increases the capacity to convey water.

The Disputed “Culvert”

The double-line feature on the plans, which the Petitioner believed was a disconnected culvert, is not a culvert. Dr. Barlo identified it as part of the “hatch pattern of the roadway track.” He supported this by noting the absence of design specifications like invert elevations, which are present on all actual culverts shown in the plans.

System Functionality

The drainage system is designed to handle a 50-year storm. The July 2021 storm was “generally believed” to be larger than a 50-year event. He opined that the Respondent has adequately maintained the drainage system and that it is not in a state of disrepair.

Impact of FEMA Designation

Lot 185’s location in a regulatory floodway is highly significant. Dr. Barlo explained this area is designed for “unimpeded discharge” and is expected to have “deeper discharge depths” during major storms.

Conclusion on Flooding

Dr. Barlo stated definitively: “flooding of the area would be expected in this area in large storm events based on the FEMA designation regardless of the culvert improvements.” He testified that the conditions Ms. Pleasants experienced were what he would expect during a 100-year storm event on that specific lot.

5. Hearing Outcome and Judicial Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on February 20, 2025, ruled conclusively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• The Judge found that the Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the CC&Rs.

• The ruling stated, “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”

• It was further established that “the underground culverts are functioning as intended.”

Final Determination

The Judge concluded that the flooding experienced by the Petitioner was a predictable and expected outcome given the circumstances: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”

IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.






Study Guide – 25F-H021-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H021-REL”, “case_title”: “Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-02-20”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system’s design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.”, “alj_quote”: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding / Liability Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Flooding”, “Maintenance”, “Liability” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?”, “short_answer”: “The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a ’50-year storm,’ even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Infrastructure”, “Grandfathering” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “A ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim is more probably true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must provide evidence that has ‘superior evidentiary weight’ and is more convincing than the HOA’s evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Legal Standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA’s expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert’s interpretation over the homeowner’s assumption.”, “alj_quote”: “Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.”, “legal_basis”: “Expert Testimony”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Expert Witnesses”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn’t maintaining common areas?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as ‘exceptional and unusually severe,’ and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Enforcement”, “Violations” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H021-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H021-REL”, “case_title”: “Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-02-20”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system’s design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.”, “alj_quote”: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding / Liability Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Flooding”, “Maintenance”, “Liability” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?”, “short_answer”: “The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a ’50-year storm,’ even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Infrastructure”, “Grandfathering” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “A ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim is more probably true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must provide evidence that has ‘superior evidentiary weight’ and is more convincing than the HOA’s evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Legal Standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA’s expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert’s interpretation over the homeowner’s assumption.”, “alj_quote”: “Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.”, “legal_basis”: “Expert Testimony”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Expert Witnesses”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn’t maintaining common areas?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as ‘exceptional and unusually severe,’ and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Enforcement”, “Violations” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Deatta M. Pleasants (petitioner)
    Lot 185 owner; testified on her own behalf
  • Larry Rice (co-owner, present with petitioner)
    Present with Petitioner
  • Daphna Rice (co-owner, present with petitioner)
    Present with Petitioner (referred to as 'D. Rice')

Respondent Side

  • Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (respondent (entity))
  • David Onuschak (HOA attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Sharon Seekins (board president, witness)
    Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
    President of Respondent's Board
  • Zachary Barlo (witness, civil engineer)
    Ironside Engineering and Development, Inc.
    Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of Decision
  • vnunez (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision
  • djones (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision
  • labril (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision
  • mneat (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision
  • lrecchia (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision
  • gosborn (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of documents/decision

Other Participants

  • Ryan J. McCarthy (attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Affiliated with Respondent's counsel; specific hearing role unclear

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)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1159036.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:53 (52.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180542.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:56 (49.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180545.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:00 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198622.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:04 (50.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:09 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1225107.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:13 (52.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227639.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:18 (48.7 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227642.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:23 (5.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1230660.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:26 (45.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1241815.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:30 (48.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1250037.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:33 (113.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H031-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H031-REL”, “case_title”: “Keystone Owners Association vs Bernadette M. Bennett”, “decision_date”: “2024-12-09”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “individuals”: [ { “name”: “Bernadette M. Bennett”, “role”: “respondent”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Lot Owner” }, { “name”: “Erica L. Mortenson”, “role”: “attorney”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Goodman Law Group”, “notes”: “HOA attorney” }, { “name”: “Thomas A. Walcott”, “role”: “attorney”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: “Provident Lawyers”, “notes”: “Respondent attorney” }, { “name”: “Harry Whitel”, “role”: “board member/witness”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Keystone Owners Association”, “notes”: “Secretary of the Board” }, { “name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “role”: “ALJ”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “OAH”, “notes”: “Administrative Law Judge” }, { “name”: “Amy Haley”, “role”: “ALJ”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “OAH”, “notes”: “Administrative Law Judge (prior to VMT)” }, { “name”: “Susan Nicolson”, “role”: “Commissioner”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Tim Seyfarth”, “role”: “board member/president”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Keystone Owners Association”, “notes”: “Board President” }, { “name”: “Glenn Steinman”, “role”: “board member”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Keystone Owners Association”, “notes”: “Board Vice President” }, { “name”: “Debbie Burch”, “role”: “board member”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Keystone Owners Association”, “notes”: “Board Treasurer” }, { “name”: “Cherry Collins”, “role”: “board member”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Keystone Owners Association”, “notes”: “Member at large; Architectural Advisory Committee member” }, { “name”: “Joe Getti”, “role”: “ARC member/former board member”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Keystone Owners Association”, “notes”: “Architectural Advisory Committee member” }, { “name”: “Mary Hamilton”, “role”: “ARC member”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Keystone Owners Association”, “notes”: “Architectural Advisory Committee member” }, { “name”: “Noah Alvarado”, “role”: “staff”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Staff/assistant for Respondent’s Counsel” }, { “name”: “Dan”, “role”: “attorney/staff”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: “Goodman Law Group”, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Christopher J. Charles”, “role”: “attorney/staff”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: “Provident Lawyers”, “notes”: null }, { “name”: “Isabella”, “role”: “property manager”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: “Vision Management”, “notes”: “Keystone Property Manager who was asked for documents” }, { “name”: “Annette Wthbon”, “role”: “property management agent”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: “City Management”, “notes”: “Former Property Management Agent” }, { “name”: “Carla Garvin”, “role”: “property management agent”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: “City Management”, “notes”: “Former Property Management Agent” } ] }






Study Guide – 24F-H031-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H031-REL”, “case_title”: “Keystone Owners Association vs. Bernadette M. Bennett”, “decision_date”: “2024-12-09”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can a sub-association enforce the rules and CC&Rs of the master association?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the master association has assigned those enforcement rights to the sub-association.”, “detailed_answer”: “A sub-association (like a specific neighborhood HOA within a larger master planned community) generally enforces its own documents. However, this decision clarifies that a sub-association may be authorized to enforce the master association’s governing documents if there is a specific assignment agreement executing that transfer of authority.”, “alj_quote”: “The Governing Documents authorize Petitioner to enforce the Governing Documents, as further memorialized by an executed Assignment Agreement by and between Mountain Park Association and Keystone Owners Association signed on August 16, 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Assignment Agreement / Governing Documents”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “sub-associations”, “master association”, “enforcement authority” ] }, { “question”: “If I extend my driveway without approval, does the HOA have to prove I didn’t get permission, or do I have to prove I did?”, “short_answer”: “The absence of written evidence granting approval can be used to establish a violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA bears the initial burden of proof for the violation, the lack of testimonial or written evidence showing that the homeowner received approval helps establish that the modification was unauthorized.”, “alj_quote”: “However, there was no testimonial or written evidence presented to establish that Respondent was granted approval to install a driveway that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area.”, “legal_basis”: “Burden of Proof”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural approval”, “evidence”, “driveways”, “modifications” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘burden of proof’ for an HOA to win a violation hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA must prove the violation by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA does not need to prove a violation ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ (the criminal standard). They must only show that their contention is ‘more probably true than not’ or carries superior evidentiary weight.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9 by a preponderance of the evidence… ‘A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can I use the defense that the HOA waited too long to enforce the rule (laches)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, but you bear the burden of proving that the delay was unreasonable and caused you prejudice.”, “detailed_answer”: “Laches is an affirmative defense. It is not enough to simply show a delay; the homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay was unreasonable and that it resulted in sufficient prejudice to deny the HOA’s relief.”, “alj_quote”: “Laches is an affirmative defense, and Respondent bears the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence… Respondent has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was unreasonable delay that has resulted in prejudice to Respondent sufficient to deny the relief Petitioner seeks…”, “legal_basis”: “A.C.C. R2-19-119(B)(2); Flynn v. Rogers”, “topic_tags”: [ “defenses”, “laches”, “enforcement delay” ] }, { “question”: “If I lose the hearing, can the judge make me pay the HOA’s filing fees?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA’s filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, the judge ordered the Respondent (homeowner) to pay the Petitioner’s (HOA) filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within 30 days.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner its filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “costs”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “How do judges interpret the meaning of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)?”, “short_answer”: “They are interpreted as a whole, looking at the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “Legal interpretation does not isolate single phrases but looks at the document in its entirety to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.”, “alj_quote”: “Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.”, “legal_basis”: “Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “covenants” ] }, { “question”: “Can the judge issue a civil penalty (fine) in addition to ordering me to fix the violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, though they may choose not to.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the administrative law judge has the discretion to order compliance and also levy a civil penalty for each violation. In this specific case, the judge found no civil penalty was appropriate, but the authority exists.”, “alj_quote”: “The administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue and may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalties”, “fines”, “statutory authority” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 24F-H031-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H031-REL”, “case_title”: “Keystone Owners Association vs. Bernadette M. Bennett”, “decision_date”: “2024-12-09”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can a sub-association enforce the rules and CC&Rs of the master association?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the master association has assigned those enforcement rights to the sub-association.”, “detailed_answer”: “A sub-association (like a specific neighborhood HOA within a larger master planned community) generally enforces its own documents. However, this decision clarifies that a sub-association may be authorized to enforce the master association’s governing documents if there is a specific assignment agreement executing that transfer of authority.”, “alj_quote”: “The Governing Documents authorize Petitioner to enforce the Governing Documents, as further memorialized by an executed Assignment Agreement by and between Mountain Park Association and Keystone Owners Association signed on August 16, 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Assignment Agreement / Governing Documents”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “sub-associations”, “master association”, “enforcement authority” ] }, { “question”: “If I extend my driveway without approval, does the HOA have to prove I didn’t get permission, or do I have to prove I did?”, “short_answer”: “The absence of written evidence granting approval can be used to establish a violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA bears the initial burden of proof for the violation, the lack of testimonial or written evidence showing that the homeowner received approval helps establish that the modification was unauthorized.”, “alj_quote”: “However, there was no testimonial or written evidence presented to establish that Respondent was granted approval to install a driveway that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area.”, “legal_basis”: “Burden of Proof”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural approval”, “evidence”, “driveways”, “modifications” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘burden of proof’ for an HOA to win a violation hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA must prove the violation by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA does not need to prove a violation ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ (the criminal standard). They must only show that their contention is ‘more probably true than not’ or carries superior evidentiary weight.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9 by a preponderance of the evidence… ‘A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can I use the defense that the HOA waited too long to enforce the rule (laches)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, but you bear the burden of proving that the delay was unreasonable and caused you prejudice.”, “detailed_answer”: “Laches is an affirmative defense. It is not enough to simply show a delay; the homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay was unreasonable and that it resulted in sufficient prejudice to deny the HOA’s relief.”, “alj_quote”: “Laches is an affirmative defense, and Respondent bears the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence… Respondent has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was unreasonable delay that has resulted in prejudice to Respondent sufficient to deny the relief Petitioner seeks…”, “legal_basis”: “A.C.C. R2-19-119(B)(2); Flynn v. Rogers”, “topic_tags”: [ “defenses”, “laches”, “enforcement delay” ] }, { “question”: “If I lose the hearing, can the judge make me pay the HOA’s filing fees?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA’s filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, the judge ordered the Respondent (homeowner) to pay the Petitioner’s (HOA) filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within 30 days.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner its filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “costs”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “How do judges interpret the meaning of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)?”, “short_answer”: “They are interpreted as a whole, looking at the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “Legal interpretation does not isolate single phrases but looks at the document in its entirety to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.”, “alj_quote”: “Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.”, “legal_basis”: “Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “covenants” ] }, { “question”: “Can the judge issue a civil penalty (fine) in addition to ordering me to fix the violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, though they may choose not to.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the administrative law judge has the discretion to order compliance and also levy a civil penalty for each violation. In this specific case, the judge found no civil penalty was appropriate, but the authority exists.”, “alj_quote”: “The administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue and may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalties”, “fines”, “statutory authority” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Erica L. Mortenson (attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    HOA attorney
  • Harry Whitel (board member/witness)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Secretary of the Board
  • Tim Seyfarth (board member/president)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Board President
  • Glenn Steinman (board member)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Board Vice President
  • Debbie Burch (board member)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Board Treasurer
  • Cherry Collins (board member)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Member at large; Architectural Advisory Committee member
  • Joe Getti (ARC member/former board member)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Architectural Advisory Committee member
  • Mary Hamilton (ARC member)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Architectural Advisory Committee member
  • Dan (attorney/staff)
    Goodman Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Bernadette M. Bennett (respondent)
    Lot Owner
  • Thomas A. Walcott (attorney)
    Provident Lawyers
    Respondent attorney
  • Noah Alvarado (staff)
    Staff/assistant for Respondent's Counsel
  • Christopher J. Charles (attorney/staff)
    Provident Lawyers

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Amy Haley (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge (prior to VMT)
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Isabella (property manager)
    Vision Management
    Keystone Property Manager who was asked for documents
  • Annette Wthbon (property management agent)
    City Management
    Former Property Management Agent
  • Carla Garvin (property management agent)
    City Management
    Former Property Management Agent

Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H054-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-20
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lisa Marx Counsel —
Respondent Tara Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1248 (A), (D), (E), and (F); and Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on the 'Records' issue (A.R.S. § 33-1258), resulting in a $500.00 filing fee reimbursement. Respondent prevailed on the 'Example 13' issue (A.R.S. § 33-1248 and CC&Rs § 9(E)).

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain her burden regarding the Open Meeting Law allegations, finding that TARA conducted meetings in compliance and the specific volunteer work referenced was not statutorily or contractually required to be placed on an agenda for formal action.

Key Issues & Findings

Records Access Violation

TARA failed to timely provide access to TARA HOA records it possessed, violating the ten business day fulfillment requirement for examination requests.

Orders: TARA was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Open Meeting Law Violation (Example 13)

Petitioner alleged open meeting violations concerning volunteer work and projects not placed on agendas or formally voted upon by the board (Example 13).

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed as to alleged violations of A.R.S. § 33-1248(A), (D), (E), and (F) and/or Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)
  • Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records, Open Meeting Law, Partial Victory, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1212274.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:34 (70.4 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1212281.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:41 (12.4 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1216809.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:49 (50.9 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1225818.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:58 (168.1 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1226250.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:12:08 (41.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H054-REL


Briefing Document: Marx v. Tara Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative case Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association (No. 24F-H054-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute centers on two primary allegations brought by homeowner and former board member Lisa Marx against the Tara Condominium Association (TARA): (1) violations of Arizona state law regarding access to association records, and (2) violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law.

The case culminated in a split decision by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). TARA was found to have violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide timely access to its financial and other records as requested by the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to prove her second claim that TARA violated the open meeting provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1248 when board members and volunteers performed maintenance and repair projects on common areas without formal agenda items and board votes.

Consequently, the ALJ sustained the petition on the records violation and dismissed it on the open meeting violation. TARA was ordered to reimburse Ms. Marx $500, representing the filing fee for the single issue on which she prevailed. A subsequent request for rehearing filed by Ms. Marx was procedurally rejected for being submitted to the incorrect agency.

Case Background and Procedural History

Parties and Context

• Petitioner: Lisa Marx, a homeowner in the Tara Condominium Association and a former board member who served in various capacities, including Secretary, Chairperson, and Vice-Chairperson, from 2021 until her resignation in January 2024.

• Respondent: Tara Condominium Association (TARA), a 50-unit nonprofit management association, represented at the hearing by its Chairman, Mark Gottmann.

The dispute arose following a change in board leadership in early 2024, with Ms. Marx alleging the new board was operating without transparency and in violation of state statutes and the association’s governing documents.

Chronology of Key Events

Jan 2024

Lisa Marx resigns from the TARA board two weeks after being elected for a fourth term.

Feb 1, 2024

Mark Gottmann assumes the role of Chairman of the Board.

Feb–Apr 2024

Marx makes a series of five requests for association records, which are either partially or fully denied by the TARA board.

May 29, 2024

Marx files an HOA Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging two categories of violations and paying a 1,000filingfee(500 per issue).

Aug 8, 2024

TARA files an Amended Response, admitting to several of the alleged violations, offering to reimburse Marx’s $1,000 filing fee, and requesting that the hearing be vacated.

Aug 8, 2024

Marx files a reply rejecting the offer, stating that the “numerous” issues required “a ruling that is binding and definite” to “hopefully prevent further violations.”

Aug 16, 2024

The ALJ issues an order requiring Marx to narrow her petition to two specific issues, categorizing the five records-request instances as one “records” issue and requiring her to select one of the thirteen alleged open-meeting violations.

Aug 19, 2024

Marx selects “Example 13” from her petition as her second issue.

Aug 29, 2024

An administrative hearing is held before ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn.

Sep 20, 2024

The ALJ issues a final decision.

Sep 23, 2024

The ALJ issues a Minute Entry rejecting a request for rehearing filed by Marx, as it was sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings instead of the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Analysis of Disputed Issues and Testimony

The hearing focused on two central issues as narrowed by the ALJ’s order.

Issue 1: Access to Association Records (A.R.S. § 33-1258)

This issue consolidated five instances across multiple dates where Marx alleged she was improperly denied access to or provision of TARA’s records.

Petitioner’s Position (Lisa Marx):

• Marx testified that she made multiple written requests for documents including vouchers, contracts, financial reports (General Ledger, AP Distribution), architectural change forms, and violation letters.

• The board’s responses were statutorily invalid. For example, a February 22, 2024 response stated: “A member of the Association is entitled to see reasonable financial information only. A member does not have a right to see contracts entered into by the Board nor information concerning specific members. We respectfully refuse your request…” Another denial was based on her being “no longer a board member.”

• Marx argued this refusal to provide records blocks transparency, creates distrust, and prevents homeowners from ensuring the governing documents are being enforced impartially. She asserted that all requested documents, such as financial records and contracts related to common areas, are records homeowners are entitled to examine.

Respondent’s Position (Tara Condominium Association):

• Mark Gottmann testified that the board was new and that any mistakes were made out of “enthusiasm” and a desire to better the community, not malicious intent.

• He stated the board acted on advice from outside sources, including a trade association, which led them to believe they were “over-providing” documents compared to their CC&Rs, which only mandate semi-annual financial statements.

• TARA experienced delays in receiving financial reports from its management company, Colby, after it was acquired by another entity, which in turn delayed distribution to homeowners.

• Gottmann argued that some requested documents did not exist (e.g., contracts for volunteer work), while others were justifiably withheld because they contained private information about individual homeowners (e.g., violation letters, architectural change forms).

Issue 2: Open Meeting Law Violations (A.R.S. § 33-1248)

This issue centered on “Example 13” of the petition, which alleged the board undertook several projects without adhering to open meeting requirements.

Petitioner’s Position (Lisa Marx):

• Marx alleged that several projects were performed on common property without being included on a meeting agenda and without a formal vote by the board in an open meeting. These projects included:

◦ Board members spraying weeds.

◦ Board members digging up grass around trees and laying mulch.

◦ A board member refinishing wood shutters.

• She argued these actions violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and TARA’s own CC&Rs (Section 9(E)), which states, “A majority vote of the Managers shall entitle the Board to carry out action on behalf of the owners of the units.”

• The failure to discuss these items in an open meeting denied members the right to provide input before the board took action on community property.

Respondent’s Position (Tara Condominium Association):

• Gottmann characterized the projects as ongoing operational responsibilities and good-faith efforts by volunteers to save the association money.

• The weed spraying was described as an “experiment” at no cost to TARA. The mulching was done with donated materials in response to a homeowner’s suggestion. The shutter repair was done by volunteers for a nominal cost of less than $150 for materials, which was within the monthly maintenance budget.

• He argued these were not formal actions requiring a board vote but were undertaken with an “enthusiasm and desire to make our community a better place.” TARA’s CC&Rs (Section 12, Part D) grant the board the power “to use and expend the assessments collected to maintain, care for, and preserve the common elements.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ’s decision, issued on September 20, 2024, delivered a split verdict, finding for each party on one of the two core issues.

Finding on Records Violation (A.R.S. § 33-1258):

• Verdict: TARA violated the statute.

• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that TARA failed to provide access to records it possessed within the statutorily required ten-day timeframe. While TARA had a potential defense for delays related to its management company and a valid reason to withhold records containing personal information of other members, the overall evidence demonstrated a failure to comply with the law.

• Outcome: The petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on this issue.

Finding on Open Meeting Violation (A.R.S. § 33-1248):

• Verdict: TARA did not violate the statute.

• Reasoning: The ALJ found that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof. The evidence showed that TARA conducted its formal meetings in compliance with open meeting laws, providing notice and agendas. The ALJ concluded there was “no evidence in the hearing record that… those work circumstances… were required by statute or the CC&Rs to be placed on a TARA agenda for discussion and/or for ‘formal action’ by the Board.”

• Outcome: The respondent was deemed the prevailing party on this issue.

Final Order

Based on the findings, the ALJ issued the following orders:

1. Petitioner’s Petition is sustained as to the TARA violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 (Records).

2. Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed as to the alleged violations by TARA of A.R.S. § 33-1248 (Open Meetings).

3. TARA is ordered to reimburse Petitioner in the amount of $500.00, representing the filing fee for the single successful claim.






Study Guide – 24F-H054-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H054-REL”, “case_title”: “Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-09-20”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to provide financial records because they are waiting to receive them from their third-party management company?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is responsible for providing access to records within the statutory 10-day timeframe, regardless of management company delays.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that waiting for a management company to provide monthly reports does not excuse the association from its statutory obligation to make records reasonably available within 10 business days. Even if the HOA acts in good faith while waiting for a vendor, failure to provide existing records violates the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “TARA has a defense, although unsupported, regarding the time frame only as to the financial documents for which TARA was waiting from its management company. … Overall, as to A.R.S. § 33-1258, there is no evidence that, within the ten day time frame, TARA provided access to the TARA HOA records it did have and which were required to have been provided to Petitioner; therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that TARA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “management company” ] }, { “question”: “Does a group of board members or volunteers doing unpaid maintenance work require an open meeting and a formal vote?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. If the work is volunteer-based and doesn’t require a specific contract or expenditure necessitating a vote under the CC&Rs or statutes, it may not trigger open meeting requirements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that volunteer work performed by board members (like weeding or painting) to save money did not constitute ‘formal action’ that required placement on an agenda or a formal vote in an open meeting, provided no statute or governing document specifically required it.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the hearing record that, prior to the volunteer work described in Example 13, that those work circumstances, or any projected volunteer work circumstances, were required by statute or the CC&Rs to be placed on a TARA agenda for discussion and/or for ‘formal action’ by the Board at the TARA monthly meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1248”, “topic_tags”: [ “open meetings”, “volunteer work”, “board authority” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA withhold violation letters or architectural change forms concerning other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if those documents contain personal information about specific members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that HOAs can refuse to provide records related to specific units, such as violation notices or contracts containing personal data, under the statutory exception for personal, health, or financial records of individual members.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4) provides an exception to the requirement to provide records for ‘personal, health or financial records of an individual member’ … In this case, because some of the requested ‘repair’ contract information for repairs at certain addresses may have contained personal information of another member, TARA was likely within its statutory authority to refuse to provide that particular information.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “privacy”, “violation letters”, “records request” ] }, { “question”: “Can the board deny my records request because I am no longer a board member?”, “short_answer”: “No. The right to examine records belongs to all members of the association.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the HOA in violation when it declined to provide information on the grounds that the requester was ‘no longer a Board member.’ The statute requires records be made available to ‘any member.'”, “alj_quote”: “TARA declined to provide such, stating that Petitioner was no longer a Board member. … TARA failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding provision of access to TARA HOA records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “homeowner rights”, “records access”, “board membership” ] }, { “question”: “If I file a petition with two issues and only win one, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “You may receive a partial reimbursement. The tribunal may order the HOA to reimburse the portion of the fee related to the successful claim.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the petitioner paid 1,000fortwoissues(500 per issue). Since the petitioner prevailed on the records issue but failed on the open meeting issue, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse only $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that TARA reimburse Petitioner in the amount of $500.00. … The Administrative Law Judge concludes TARA is the prevailing party regarding the ‘Example 13’ issue and Petitioner bears the filing fee on this issue.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “dispute resolution”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Does being a ‘new board’ or ‘learning the ropes’ excuse the HOA from following state laws?”, “short_answer”: “No. Ignorance of the law or being a new board is not a valid defense for violating statutes.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA argued they were a new board acting in the best interest of the community and learning better governing practices. The ALJ acknowledged this explanation but still ruled that the failure to provide records was a violation of state statute.”, “alj_quote”: “TARA explained that the Board was a new Board and, believing it was acting in the Board’s best interest, was in the process of learning the procedures for better governing practices. … the Administrative Law Judge concludes that TARA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “board duties”, “legal compliance”, “defenses” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 24F-H054-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H054-REL”, “case_title”: “Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-09-20”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to provide financial records because they are waiting to receive them from their third-party management company?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is responsible for providing access to records within the statutory 10-day timeframe, regardless of management company delays.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that waiting for a management company to provide monthly reports does not excuse the association from its statutory obligation to make records reasonably available within 10 business days. Even if the HOA acts in good faith while waiting for a vendor, failure to provide existing records violates the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “TARA has a defense, although unsupported, regarding the time frame only as to the financial documents for which TARA was waiting from its management company. … Overall, as to A.R.S. § 33-1258, there is no evidence that, within the ten day time frame, TARA provided access to the TARA HOA records it did have and which were required to have been provided to Petitioner; therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that TARA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “management company” ] }, { “question”: “Does a group of board members or volunteers doing unpaid maintenance work require an open meeting and a formal vote?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. If the work is volunteer-based and doesn’t require a specific contract or expenditure necessitating a vote under the CC&Rs or statutes, it may not trigger open meeting requirements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that volunteer work performed by board members (like weeding or painting) to save money did not constitute ‘formal action’ that required placement on an agenda or a formal vote in an open meeting, provided no statute or governing document specifically required it.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the hearing record that, prior to the volunteer work described in Example 13, that those work circumstances, or any projected volunteer work circumstances, were required by statute or the CC&Rs to be placed on a TARA agenda for discussion and/or for ‘formal action’ by the Board at the TARA monthly meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1248”, “topic_tags”: [ “open meetings”, “volunteer work”, “board authority” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA withhold violation letters or architectural change forms concerning other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if those documents contain personal information about specific members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that HOAs can refuse to provide records related to specific units, such as violation notices or contracts containing personal data, under the statutory exception for personal, health, or financial records of individual members.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4) provides an exception to the requirement to provide records for ‘personal, health or financial records of an individual member’ … In this case, because some of the requested ‘repair’ contract information for repairs at certain addresses may have contained personal information of another member, TARA was likely within its statutory authority to refuse to provide that particular information.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “privacy”, “violation letters”, “records request” ] }, { “question”: “Can the board deny my records request because I am no longer a board member?”, “short_answer”: “No. The right to examine records belongs to all members of the association.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the HOA in violation when it declined to provide information on the grounds that the requester was ‘no longer a Board member.’ The statute requires records be made available to ‘any member.'”, “alj_quote”: “TARA declined to provide such, stating that Petitioner was no longer a Board member. … TARA failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding provision of access to TARA HOA records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “homeowner rights”, “records access”, “board membership” ] }, { “question”: “If I file a petition with two issues and only win one, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “You may receive a partial reimbursement. The tribunal may order the HOA to reimburse the portion of the fee related to the successful claim.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the petitioner paid 1,000fortwoissues(500 per issue). Since the petitioner prevailed on the records issue but failed on the open meeting issue, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse only $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that TARA reimburse Petitioner in the amount of $500.00. … The Administrative Law Judge concludes TARA is the prevailing party regarding the ‘Example 13’ issue and Petitioner bears the filing fee on this issue.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “dispute resolution”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Does being a ‘new board’ or ‘learning the ropes’ excuse the HOA from following state laws?”, “short_answer”: “No. Ignorance of the law or being a new board is not a valid defense for violating statutes.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA argued they were a new board acting in the best interest of the community and learning better governing practices. The ALJ acknowledged this explanation but still ruled that the failure to provide records was a violation of state statute.”, “alj_quote”: “TARA explained that the Board was a new Board and, believing it was acting in the Board’s best interest, was in the process of learning the procedures for better governing practices. … the Administrative Law Judge concludes that TARA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “board duties”, “legal compliance”, “defenses” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lisa Marx (petitioner)
    Tara Condominium Association (Homeowner)
    Also former HOA Secretary, Vice-Chairperson, and Chairperson.
  • Brenda Spielder (observer)
    Tara Condominium Association (Member)
    Attended hearing with Petitioner.
  • Cynthia Poland (observer)
    Tara Condominium Association (Member)
    Attended hearing with Petitioner.

Respondent Side

  • Mark Gottmann (board member)
    Tara Condominium Association
    Chairman of the Board; represented Tara at the hearing.
  • Chandler W. Travis (HOA attorney)
    Travis Law Firm PLC
    Counsel for Tara Condominium Association until August 27, 2024.
  • Stephanie Bushart (board member)
    Tara Condominium Association
  • Tina Marie Shepherd (board member)
    Tara Condominium Association
    Resigned as Chairperson on January 31, 2024.
  • Dennis Anderson (board member)
    Tara Condominium Association
    Involved in volunteer work (weed spraying, trench digging, shutter refinishing).
  • Judy Rice (board member)
    Tara Condominium Association
    Treasurer and CPA.
  • Ted (board member)
    Tara Condominium Association
    Involved in volunteer trench work.
  • Nikki (volunteer)
    Tara Condominium Association
    Involved in volunteer shutter repair.

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Renee Snow (volunteer)
    Tara Condominium Association
    Volunteered for landscaping committee.

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

Article II Section 1(c)

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
  • CC&R Article IV Section 2

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1133251.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:24 (51.2 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1135497.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:25 (54.9 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1168799.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:26 (47.6 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1178674.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:29 (136.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H023-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H023-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of: Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson, Petitioners, v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc., Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “2024-05-16”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Robert P. Fink”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Testified on own behalf”
},
{
“name”: “Brittany L. Oleson”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also referred to as Brittany L. Olsen”
},
{
“name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “David Onuschak”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Jones Skelton & Hochuli”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tom Hardesty”,
“role”: “board president”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Thomas Ryan”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.”,
“notes”: “Current Treasurer”
},
{
“name”: “Eric Powell”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.”,
“notes”: “Also referred to as Erik Powell; testified for Respondent; former President and Secretary”
},
{
“name”: “Jim Chepales”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Paula Miller”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.”,
“notes”: “Board Secretary”
},
{
“name”: “Juanita Havill”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Former HOA board President, Vice President, and Treasurer”
},
{
“name”: “David Steedman”,
“role”: “former board member”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.”,
“notes”: “Former Treasurer; present as an observer”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Leslie Kramer”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Provided legal opinions to the HOA; Affidavit admitted as Exhibit 32”
},
{
“name”: “Edwin Gaines”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Provided legal opinion to the HOA; Declaration admitted as Exhibit 31”
},
{
“name”: “Michael Shupe”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Consulted by the Board regarding the petition”
},
{
“name”: “Kevin Wallace”,
“role”: “former board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.”,
“notes”: “Former Vice President”
},
{
“name”: “Emily Masta”,
“role”: “community member”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Mentioned in board email communications”
},
{
“name”: “Rosalyn Buchas”,
“role”: “Border Patrol Agent”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “US Customs and Border Protection”,
“notes”: “Author of 2014 report referenced”
},
{
“name”: “Ben Cummings”,
“role”: “Border Patrol Agent”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “US Customs and Border Protection”,
“notes”: “Attended 2014 meeting”
},
{
“name”: “Jay Deforest”,
“role”: “community member”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Called 2014 Border Patrol meeting”
},
{
“name”: “Mark Stroberg”,
“role”: “community member”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting”
},
{
“name”: “Barbara Stoneberg”,
“role”: “community member”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting”
},
{
“name”: “Steven Sue Archbald”,
“role”: “community member”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting”
},
{
“name”: “Laura Brown”,
“role”: “community member”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal”
},
{
“name”: “Archerald Brown”,
“role”: “community member”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal”
}
]
}






Study Guide – 24F-H023-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H023-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2024-05-16”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the CC&Rs during a dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof required is a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “procedural requirements”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “What does ‘preponderance of the evidence’ mean in an HOA hearing?”, “short_answer”: “It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented has superior weight and is convincing enough to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other. It is not necessarily about having a greater number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “definitions” ] }, { “question”: “Can I interpret a specific sentence in the CC&Rs in isolation to prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, CC&R provisions must be interpreted within the context of the entire provision.”, “detailed_answer”: “A homeowner cannot cherry-pick a specific clause or sentence to claim a violation. The Administrative Law Judge will look at the entire section to understand the intended scope and application of the restriction.”, “alj_quote”: “One cannot read Section 1(c) of Article II without taking into consideration the context of the entire provision”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Interpretation Principles”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R interpretation”, “legal standards”, “context” ] }, { “question”: “How does the word ‘and’ affect the interpretation of restrictions in the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “The word ‘and’ is conjunctive, meaning clauses it connects must be read together, not as separate independent choices.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a CC&R provision lists restrictions connected by ‘and’ (e.g., no improvements AND no actions increasing density), it implies the conditions are linked. The ALJ distinguished this from the disjunctive ‘or’. In this case, a restriction on improvements was linked to increasing density/transferring land because they were joined by ‘and’.”, “alj_quote”: “This sentence is written in the conjunctive. The word ‘and’ is used to connect the two clauses. It is not written in the disjunctive, as the word ‘or’ is not part of the sentence.”, “legal_basis”: “Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract interpretation”, “grammar”, “legal standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA use general assessment funds for safety improvements without a special homeowner vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the CC&Rs grant authority to use assessments for health, safety, and welfare.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the CC&Rs state that assessments are for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents, the Board may use general funds for improvements like security gates without a specific supermajority vote typically reserved for special assessments or land transfers.”, “alj_quote”: “Article IV Section 2 of the 2006 recorded CC&Rs grant authority to Respondent to use the general assessment monies to ‘promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents.'”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Article IV Section 2”, “topic_tags”: [ “assessments”, “HOA powers”, “safety improvements” ] }, { “question”: “Does a CC&R requirement for a 3/4 vote to ‘transfer’ common area apply to installing a gate?”, “short_answer”: “No, installing a gate is not considered dedicating or transferring land.”, “detailed_answer”: “A CC&R clause requiring a supermajority vote to dedicate or transfer common area to a public agency does not apply to the installation of a security gate, as the gate does not constitute a transfer of land ownership.”, “alj_quote”: “The installation of a security gate does not dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Article II Section 1(c)”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting requirements”, “common area”, “improvements” ] }, { “question”: “Does a restriction on increasing the ‘density of residences’ apply to security improvements?”, “short_answer”: “No, security improvements like gates do not increase residential density.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a voting requirement in the CC&Rs is triggered by actions that ‘increase the density of residences,’ it does not apply to infrastructure improvements like security gates that have no effect on the number of homes or density.”, “alj_quote”: “Further, the installation of a security gate is not an improvement that increases the density of the residences. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Article II Section 1(c)”, “topic_tags”: [ “density”, “improvements”, “voting requirements” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 24F-H023-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H023-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2024-05-16”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the CC&Rs during a dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof required is a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “procedural requirements”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “What does ‘preponderance of the evidence’ mean in an HOA hearing?”, “short_answer”: “It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented has superior weight and is convincing enough to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other. It is not necessarily about having a greater number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “definitions” ] }, { “question”: “Can I interpret a specific sentence in the CC&Rs in isolation to prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, CC&R provisions must be interpreted within the context of the entire provision.”, “detailed_answer”: “A homeowner cannot cherry-pick a specific clause or sentence to claim a violation. The Administrative Law Judge will look at the entire section to understand the intended scope and application of the restriction.”, “alj_quote”: “One cannot read Section 1(c) of Article II without taking into consideration the context of the entire provision”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Interpretation Principles”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R interpretation”, “legal standards”, “context” ] }, { “question”: “How does the word ‘and’ affect the interpretation of restrictions in the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “The word ‘and’ is conjunctive, meaning clauses it connects must be read together, not as separate independent choices.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a CC&R provision lists restrictions connected by ‘and’ (e.g., no improvements AND no actions increasing density), it implies the conditions are linked. The ALJ distinguished this from the disjunctive ‘or’. In this case, a restriction on improvements was linked to increasing density/transferring land because they were joined by ‘and’.”, “alj_quote”: “This sentence is written in the conjunctive. The word ‘and’ is used to connect the two clauses. It is not written in the disjunctive, as the word ‘or’ is not part of the sentence.”, “legal_basis”: “Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract interpretation”, “grammar”, “legal standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA use general assessment funds for safety improvements without a special homeowner vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the CC&Rs grant authority to use assessments for health, safety, and welfare.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the CC&Rs state that assessments are for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents, the Board may use general funds for improvements like security gates without a specific supermajority vote typically reserved for special assessments or land transfers.”, “alj_quote”: “Article IV Section 2 of the 2006 recorded CC&Rs grant authority to Respondent to use the general assessment monies to ‘promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents.'”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Article IV Section 2”, “topic_tags”: [ “assessments”, “HOA powers”, “safety improvements” ] }, { “question”: “Does a CC&R requirement for a 3/4 vote to ‘transfer’ common area apply to installing a gate?”, “short_answer”: “No, installing a gate is not considered dedicating or transferring land.”, “detailed_answer”: “A CC&R clause requiring a supermajority vote to dedicate or transfer common area to a public agency does not apply to the installation of a security gate, as the gate does not constitute a transfer of land ownership.”, “alj_quote”: “The installation of a security gate does not dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Article II Section 1(c)”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting requirements”, “common area”, “improvements” ] }, { “question”: “Does a restriction on increasing the ‘density of residences’ apply to security improvements?”, “short_answer”: “No, security improvements like gates do not increase residential density.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a voting requirement in the CC&Rs is triggered by actions that ‘increase the density of residences,’ it does not apply to infrastructure improvements like security gates that have no effect on the number of homes or density.”, “alj_quote”: “Further, the installation of a security gate is not an improvement that increases the density of the residences. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Article II Section 1(c)”, “topic_tags”: [ “density”, “improvements”, “voting requirements” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert P. Fink (petitioner)
    Testified on own behalf
  • Brittany L. Oleson (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Brittany L. Olsen
  • Juanita Havill (witness)
    Former HOA board President, Vice President, and Treasurer

Respondent Side

  • David Onuschak (HOA attorney)
    Jones Skelton & Hochuli
  • Tom Hardesty (board president)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
  • Thomas Ryan (board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Current Treasurer
  • Eric Powell (board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Also referred to as Erik Powell; testified for Respondent; former President and Secretary
  • Jim Chepales (board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
  • Paula Miller (witness)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Board Secretary
  • Leslie Kramer (HOA attorney)
    Provided legal opinions to the HOA; Affidavit admitted as Exhibit 32
  • Edwin Gaines (HOA attorney)
    Provided legal opinion to the HOA; Declaration admitted as Exhibit 31
  • Michael Shupe (HOA attorney)
    Consulted by the Board regarding the petition
  • Kevin Wallace (former board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Former Vice President

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Rosalyn Buchas (Border Patrol Agent)
    US Customs and Border Protection
    Author of 2014 report referenced
  • Ben Cummings (Border Patrol Agent)
    US Customs and Border Protection
    Attended 2014 meeting

Other Participants

  • David Steedman (former board member)
    Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
    Former Treasurer; present as an observer
  • Emily Masta (community member)
    Mentioned in board email communications
  • Jay Deforest (community member)
    Called 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Mark Stroberg (community member)
    Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Barbara Stoneberg (community member)
    Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Steven Sue Archbald (community member)
    Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
  • Laura Brown (community member)
    Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal
  • Archerald Brown (community member)
    Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal

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)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1124651.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:59 (48.4 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1133120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:01 (39.9 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1134423.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:05 (48.2 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:08 (55.7 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139646.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:12 (7.6 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1157271.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:17 (47.1 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1168680.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:22 (86.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H025-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H025-REL”,
“case_title”: “David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association”,
“decision_date”: “2024-04-18”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “David Y. Samuels”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Daso Properties, LLC”,
“notes”: “Managing member of the property owner (Daso Properties, LLC); Appeared on his own behalf.”
},
{
“name”: “Amy M. Haley”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Conducted the hearing and issued the final decision.”
},
{
“name”: “Ashley N. Turner”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Goodman Law Group”,
“notes”: “Council for respondent; Also appeared as Ashley N. Moscarello in earlier filings.”
},
{
“name”: “Alyssa Butler”,
“role”: “community manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “The Management Trust (TMT)”,
“notes”: “Witness for the association.”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Issued an order on March 19, 2024.”
},
{
“name”: “Stephanie Beck”,
“role”: “HOA staff”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.”
},
{
“name”: “Catherine Green”,
“role”: “HOA staff”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.”
},
{
“name”: “A. Hansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission via email AHansen@azre.gov.”
},
{
“name”: “V. Nunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission via email vnunez@azre.gov.”
},
{
“name”: “D. Jones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission via email djones@azre.gov.”
},
{
“name”: “L. Abril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission via email labril@azre.gov.”
},
{
“name”: “M. Neat”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission via email mneat@azre.gov.”
},
{
“name”: “A. Kowaleski”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission via email akowaleski@azre.gov.”
},
{
“name”: “G. Osborn”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission via email gosborn@azre.gov.”
}
]
}






Study Guide – 24F-H025-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H025-REL”, “case_title”: “David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-04-18”, “alj_name”: “Amy M. Haley”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my property is owned by an LLC, can I file a petition against the HOA in my own name as the managing member?”, “short_answer”: “No. The petition must be filed by the legal owner (the LLC), not an individual member, or it will be dismissed for lack of standing.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that an individual managing member of an LLC does not have standing to bring an action on behalf of the property owned by the LLC. The dispute statute specifically applies to ‘owners’ and ‘associations’.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal finds that, after taking testimony, Petitioner, as an individual, did not have standing to bring this action… The proper party to bring the action would have been Daso Properties, LLC.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “standing”, “LLC ownership”, “procedural requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can I use laws meant for Planned Communities (A.R.S. § 33-1803) to dispute charges if I live in a Condominium?”, “short_answer”: “No. Condominiums are governed by a different set of statutes (Chapter 9) than Planned Communities (Chapter 16).”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed the claim because the homeowner cited the Planned Community Act (A.R.S. § 33-1803) while the property was legally a condominium. Condominiums are not subject to the Planned Community Act.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the Property is a condominium; therefore, Respondent is not subject to the Planned Community Act. … Chapter 9 governs condominiums.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “condominium vs planned community”, “statutory application” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear a dispute if I am not the legal owner of the property?”, “short_answer”: “No. The Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes specifically between an owner and an association.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that the administrative hearing process is strictly for disputes involving an ‘owner’ or ‘association’. If the petitioner is not the legal owner (even if they manage the LLC that owns it), the Department lacks jurisdiction.”, “alj_quote”: “The department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute that does not involve an owner or an association.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “standing”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner claims an HOA violated state laws?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In these administrative hearings, it is the responsibility of the person bringing the complaint to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 as alleged in his petition.”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standards” ] }, { “question”: “What happens if I base my entire petition on a statute that doesn’t apply to my type of property?”, “short_answer”: “The petition will be dismissed because you have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Because the petitioner cited the wrong statute (Planned Community Act for a Condominium), the judge ruled that there was no valid legal claim to rule on, resulting in dismissal.”, “alj_quote”: “As such, Petitioner has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted under A.R.S. § 33-1801.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1801”, “topic_tags”: [ “dismissal”, “legal procedure”, “condominium act” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 24F-H025-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H025-REL”, “case_title”: “David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-04-18”, “alj_name”: “Amy M. Haley”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my property is owned by an LLC, can I file a petition against the HOA in my own name as the managing member?”, “short_answer”: “No. The petition must be filed by the legal owner (the LLC), not an individual member, or it will be dismissed for lack of standing.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that an individual managing member of an LLC does not have standing to bring an action on behalf of the property owned by the LLC. The dispute statute specifically applies to ‘owners’ and ‘associations’.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal finds that, after taking testimony, Petitioner, as an individual, did not have standing to bring this action… The proper party to bring the action would have been Daso Properties, LLC.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “standing”, “LLC ownership”, “procedural requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can I use laws meant for Planned Communities (A.R.S. § 33-1803) to dispute charges if I live in a Condominium?”, “short_answer”: “No. Condominiums are governed by a different set of statutes (Chapter 9) than Planned Communities (Chapter 16).”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed the claim because the homeowner cited the Planned Community Act (A.R.S. § 33-1803) while the property was legally a condominium. Condominiums are not subject to the Planned Community Act.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the Property is a condominium; therefore, Respondent is not subject to the Planned Community Act. … Chapter 9 governs condominiums.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “condominium vs planned community”, “statutory application” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear a dispute if I am not the legal owner of the property?”, “short_answer”: “No. The Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes specifically between an owner and an association.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that the administrative hearing process is strictly for disputes involving an ‘owner’ or ‘association’. If the petitioner is not the legal owner (even if they manage the LLC that owns it), the Department lacks jurisdiction.”, “alj_quote”: “The department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute that does not involve an owner or an association.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “standing”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner claims an HOA violated state laws?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In these administrative hearings, it is the responsibility of the person bringing the complaint to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 as alleged in his petition.”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standards” ] }, { “question”: “What happens if I base my entire petition on a statute that doesn’t apply to my type of property?”, “short_answer”: “The petition will be dismissed because you have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Because the petitioner cited the wrong statute (Planned Community Act for a Condominium), the judge ruled that there was no valid legal claim to rule on, resulting in dismissal.”, “alj_quote”: “As such, Petitioner has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted under A.R.S. § 33-1801.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1801”, “topic_tags”: [ “dismissal”, “legal procedure”, “condominium act” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David Y. Samuels (petitioner)
    Daso Properties, LLC
    Managing member of the property owner (Daso Properties, LLC); Appeared on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Turner (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Council for respondent; Also appeared as Ashley N. Moscarello in earlier filings.
  • Alyssa Butler (community manager)
    The Management Trust (TMT)
    Witness for the association.
  • Stephanie Beck (HOA staff)
    Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.
  • Catherine Green (HOA staff)
    Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.

Neutral Parties

  • Amy M. Haley (ALJ)
    OAH
    Conducted the hearing and issued the final decision.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Issued an order on March 19, 2024.
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email AHansen@azre.gov.
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email vnunez@azre.gov.
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email djones@azre.gov.
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email labril@azre.gov.
  • M. Neat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email mneat@azre.gov.
  • A. Kowaleski (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email akowaleski@azre.gov.
  • G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email gosborn@azre.gov.

Thomas P. Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Authority to enforce parking rule on residential public streets

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1057905.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:20 (71.7 KB)

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1059621.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:22 (44.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 23F-H048-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “23F-H048-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of Thomas P. Hommrich vs. The Lakewood Community Association”,
“decision_date”: “May 19, 2023”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Thomas P. Hommrich”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Quinten Cupps”,
“role”: “respondent attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “vf-law.com”,
“notes”: “Esq.”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal”
},
{
“name”: “labril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal”
}
]
}






Study Guide – 23F-H048-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H048-REL”, “case_title”: “Thomas P. Hommrich vs. The Lakewood Community Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-19”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the administrative hearing process to challenge my HOA’s legal authority or power to enforce a specific rule?”, “short_answer”: “No. Challenges to an Association’s corporate power to act must be brought in a court of law, not the administrative tribunal.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear challenges regarding the Association’s ‘power to act’ (such as whether they have the authority to restrict parking). Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3304, these specific legal challenges regarding corporate authority must be addressed in a court of law.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner may not challenge the Association’s power to act in this tribunal under A.R.S. § 10-3304. Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3304”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “corporate power”, “HOA authority” ] }, { “question”: “If I disagree with a decision, can I file a motion to amend my petition after the order has been issued?”, “short_answer”: “No. Once a decision is rendered, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot consider motions to amend.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ clarified that once a decision is finalized, the OAH loses the ability to take further action on the matter, meaning a Motion to Amend filed after the decision cannot be considered.”, “alj_quote”: “The Motion to Amend the Petition cannot not be considered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) as this tribunal’s decision has already been rendered and, because of that, OAH can take no further action on the matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Procedural Rule”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedure”, “appeals”, “amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Where must I file a request for a rehearing if I lose my case?”, “short_answer”: “You must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate (ADRE), not the hearing office.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the hearing takes place at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), a request for a rehearing must be directed to the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.09”, “topic_tags”: [ “rehearing”, “procedure”, “ADRE” ] }, { “question”: “Can the administrative tribunal issue an injunction preventing the HOA from enforcing parking restrictions on public streets?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no, if the claim is based on the HOA lacking the ‘power to act’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner sought an order prohibiting the HOA from restricting parking on public streets. The ALJ dismissed this because the claim was fundamentally about the Association’s authority (power to act), which falls outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner asks this Court to issue an order that prohibits the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets… Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3304”, “topic_tags”: [ “parking”, “injunctions”, “jurisdiction” ] }, { “question”: “Does a petition challenging an HOA rule have to allege a specific violation of the community documents or statutes?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the petition does not concern a violation of documents or statutes, it may be dismissed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA successfully argued that the petition should be dismissed because it did not allege that the HOA violated community documents or statutes, but rather challenged the HOA’s authority to make rules.”, “alj_quote”: “Therefore, the petition does not concern a violation of community documents or of any statute… IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “petition requirements”, “dismissal”, “violations” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 23F-H048-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H048-REL”, “case_title”: “Thomas P. Hommrich vs. The Lakewood Community Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-19”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the administrative hearing process to challenge my HOA’s legal authority or power to enforce a specific rule?”, “short_answer”: “No. Challenges to an Association’s corporate power to act must be brought in a court of law, not the administrative tribunal.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear challenges regarding the Association’s ‘power to act’ (such as whether they have the authority to restrict parking). Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3304, these specific legal challenges regarding corporate authority must be addressed in a court of law.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner may not challenge the Association’s power to act in this tribunal under A.R.S. § 10-3304. Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3304”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “corporate power”, “HOA authority” ] }, { “question”: “If I disagree with a decision, can I file a motion to amend my petition after the order has been issued?”, “short_answer”: “No. Once a decision is rendered, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot consider motions to amend.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ clarified that once a decision is finalized, the OAH loses the ability to take further action on the matter, meaning a Motion to Amend filed after the decision cannot be considered.”, “alj_quote”: “The Motion to Amend the Petition cannot not be considered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) as this tribunal’s decision has already been rendered and, because of that, OAH can take no further action on the matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Procedural Rule”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedure”, “appeals”, “amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Where must I file a request for a rehearing if I lose my case?”, “short_answer”: “You must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate (ADRE), not the hearing office.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the hearing takes place at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), a request for a rehearing must be directed to the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.09”, “topic_tags”: [ “rehearing”, “procedure”, “ADRE” ] }, { “question”: “Can the administrative tribunal issue an injunction preventing the HOA from enforcing parking restrictions on public streets?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no, if the claim is based on the HOA lacking the ‘power to act’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner sought an order prohibiting the HOA from restricting parking on public streets. The ALJ dismissed this because the claim was fundamentally about the Association’s authority (power to act), which falls outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner asks this Court to issue an order that prohibits the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets… Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3304”, “topic_tags”: [ “parking”, “injunctions”, “jurisdiction” ] }, { “question”: “Does a petition challenging an HOA rule have to allege a specific violation of the community documents or statutes?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the petition does not concern a violation of documents or statutes, it may be dismissed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA successfully argued that the petition should be dismissed because it did not allege that the HOA violated community documents or statutes, but rather challenged the HOA’s authority to make rules.”, “alj_quote”: “Therefore, the petition does not concern a violation of community documents or of any statute… IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “petition requirements”, “dismissal”, “violations” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas P. Hommrich (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Quinten Cupps (respondent attorney)
    vf-law.com
    Esq.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal

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

https://open.spotify.com/episode/427Jtvhv86O3eSaVHmEQjV

Decision Documents

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1043132.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:21 (55.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1048244.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:24 (37.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049662.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:28 (18.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:31 (23.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:36 (87.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 23F-H035-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “23F-H035-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association”,
“decision_date”: “April 17, 2023”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Barbara J. Ryan”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on behalf of herself”
},
{
“name”: “Jody A. Corrales”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy”,
“notes”: “Represented the Respondent, Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association [1-3]”
},
{
“name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Also introduced herself as Sales Thompson [4, 5]”
},
{
“name”: “Dorothy Marine”,
“role”: “board member/witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association”,
“notes”: “Director and President of the board [6]; testified at hearing [7]”
},
{
“name”: “Cindy Celeste”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association”,
“notes”: “Director [6, 8]”
},
{
“name”: “Jim Kasa”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association”,
“notes”: “Director [6]”
},
{
“name”: “Bill Nethery”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Meadows Property Association member”,
“notes”: “Listed as a witness on Petitioner’s petition [9]”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “labril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Gail Olia”,
“role”: “former board member”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association”,
“notes”: “Director who resigned; also referred to as Jill Olia [10, 11]”
},
{
“name”: “Sorl Tate”,
“role”: “homeowner”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member”,
“notes”: “Individual whose prior contentious state court proceeding against the HOA contributed to the bankruptcy [12, 13]”
},
{
“name”: “Damon Rosen”,
“role”: “applicant for board vacancy”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member”,
“notes”: “Individual who submitted a resume to serve on the board [14]”
}
]
}






Study Guide – 23F-H035-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H035-REL”, “case_title”: “Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-04-17”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA skip annual member meetings due to ongoing litigation or bankruptcy proceedings?”, “short_answer”: “No. Legal defenses based on external issues like litigation or bankruptcy may not validate the failure to hold meetings required by bylaws.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA attempted to argue that bankruptcy and litigation prevented them from holding meetings. However, the ALJ noted that the Respondent’s own counsel eventually admitted there were no legal defenses for failing to hold the meeting, and the failure was ruled a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s counsel stated that there were no legal defenses to Respondent’s failure to hold a board meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Section 7.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “annual meetings”, “HOA defenses”, “bankruptcy” ] }, { “question”: “If I include multiple complaints in my petition but only pay the fee for one, will the judge hear all of them?”, “short_answer”: “No. The Administrative Law Judge will likely only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner included allegations regarding failure to respond to requests for special meetings and removal of directors, but because she only paid the $500 fee for one issue (failure to hold annual meetings), the other allegations were not addressed in the decision.”, “alj_quote”: “The petition included other allegations including, but not limited to, the Board failure to respond to requests for a special meeting of members and/or a meeting to remove directors from the Board. However, Petitioner has paid for only one issue.”, “legal_basis”: “Procedural Rule”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “petition scope”, “administrative procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does the failure to hold an annual meeting automatically invalidate the HOA’s corporate actions?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. Bylaws often contain specific provisions stating that the failure to hold a meeting does not affect the validity of corporate actions.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites a specific section of the HOA’s bylaws which explicitly states that missing the fixed time for an annual meeting does not invalidate corporate actions.”, “alj_quote”: “The failure to hold an annual or regular meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the Bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Section 7.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “corporate actions”, “validity”, “bylaws” ] }, { “question”: “What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The burden is on the petitioner to show that their contention is ‘more probably true than not.’ It is not based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standard”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can I be reimbursed for my filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to pay the filing fee back to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “After ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the failure to hold meetings, the judge ordered the HOA to pay the petitioner the $500 filing fee within 30 days.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association must pay to Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Order of the ALJ”, “topic_tags”: [ “reimbursement”, “filing fees”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate even if a violation is found.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the HOA was found to have violated the bylaws by not holding meetings for two years, the judge explicitly declined to assess a civil penalty in this specific matter.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Judicial Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalty”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 23F-H035-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H035-REL”, “case_title”: “Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-04-17”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA skip annual member meetings due to ongoing litigation or bankruptcy proceedings?”, “short_answer”: “No. Legal defenses based on external issues like litigation or bankruptcy may not validate the failure to hold meetings required by bylaws.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA attempted to argue that bankruptcy and litigation prevented them from holding meetings. However, the ALJ noted that the Respondent’s own counsel eventually admitted there were no legal defenses for failing to hold the meeting, and the failure was ruled a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s counsel stated that there were no legal defenses to Respondent’s failure to hold a board meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Section 7.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “annual meetings”, “HOA defenses”, “bankruptcy” ] }, { “question”: “If I include multiple complaints in my petition but only pay the fee for one, will the judge hear all of them?”, “short_answer”: “No. The Administrative Law Judge will likely only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner included allegations regarding failure to respond to requests for special meetings and removal of directors, but because she only paid the $500 fee for one issue (failure to hold annual meetings), the other allegations were not addressed in the decision.”, “alj_quote”: “The petition included other allegations including, but not limited to, the Board failure to respond to requests for a special meeting of members and/or a meeting to remove directors from the Board. However, Petitioner has paid for only one issue.”, “legal_basis”: “Procedural Rule”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “petition scope”, “administrative procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does the failure to hold an annual meeting automatically invalidate the HOA’s corporate actions?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. Bylaws often contain specific provisions stating that the failure to hold a meeting does not affect the validity of corporate actions.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites a specific section of the HOA’s bylaws which explicitly states that missing the fixed time for an annual meeting does not invalidate corporate actions.”, “alj_quote”: “The failure to hold an annual or regular meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the Bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Section 7.1”, “topic_tags”: [ “corporate actions”, “validity”, “bylaws” ] }, { “question”: “What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The burden is on the petitioner to show that their contention is ‘more probably true than not.’ It is not based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standard”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can I be reimbursed for my filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to pay the filing fee back to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “After ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the failure to hold meetings, the judge ordered the HOA to pay the petitioner the $500 filing fee within 30 days.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association must pay to Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Order of the ALJ”, “topic_tags”: [ “reimbursement”, “filing fees”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate even if a violation is found.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the HOA was found to have violated the bylaws by not holding meetings for two years, the judge explicitly declined to assess a civil penalty in this specific matter.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Judicial Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalty”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Barbara J. Ryan (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of herself
  • Bill Nethery (witness)
    Meadows Property Association member
    Listed as a witness on Petitioner's petition
  • Damon Rosen (applicant for board vacancy)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member
    Individual who submitted a resume to serve on the board

Respondent Side

  • Jody A. Corrales (HOA attorney)
    DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy
    Represented the Respondent, Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
  • Dorothy Marine (board member/witness)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
    Director and President of the board; testified at hearing
  • Cindy Celeste (board member)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
    Director
  • Jim Kasa (board member)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
    Director

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
    Also introduced herself as Sales Thompson
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Gail Olia (former board member)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
    Director who resigned; also referred to as Jill Olia
  • Sorl Tate (homeowner)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member
    Individual whose prior contentious state court proceeding against the HOA contributed to the bankruptcy

Daniel Mayer v. Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H020-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-17
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel Mayer Counsel —
Respondent Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by improperly combining two separate expenditure proposals (roadway preservation and gate replacement) into a single vote on a ballot, failing to provide an opportunity to vote on each action separately. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Combining two separate proposed actions into a single vote action on a ballot.

The Respondent HOA combined two separate proposed expenditures ($30,000 total for roadway asset preservation and common area gate replacement) into one vote on a ballot sent to homeowners, violating statutory requirements that each proposed action must be voted upon separately.

Orders: Respondent must abide by A.R.S. § 33-1812; Respondent must refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Ballot, Combined Vote, Reserve Funds Access, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4jD4DBnKBI57WggSZKqOKg

Decision Documents

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1031122.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:58 (100.0 KB)

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1038504.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:01 (54.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 23F-H020-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “23F-H020-REL”,
“case_title”: “Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.”,
“decision_date”: “2023-03-02”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Daniel Mayer”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf”
},
{
“name”: “Sandy Chambers”,
“role”: “board president”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.”,
“notes”: “Appeared on behalf of Respondent; also referred to as ‘Andrew Chambers’ and ‘Miss Chambers’ in the transcript”
},
{
“name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Mr. D’Angelo”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Petitioner’s husband”
},
{
“name”: “Miranda”,
“role”: “OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Front desk staff mentioned by ALJ”
},
{
“name”: “James Knupp”,
“role”: “commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Acting Commissioner listed on initial transmittal”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “jzipprich”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Desert Management”,
“notes”: “Email contact for Respondent HOA”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Transmittal recipient”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Transmittal recipient”
},
{
“name”: “labril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Transmittal recipient”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Transmittal recipient”
}
]
}






Study Guide – 23F-H020-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H020-REL”, “case_title”: “Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2023-02-17”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “ballots”, “assessments” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.”, “alj_quote”: “According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708”, “topic_tags”: [ “absentee ballots”, “voting”, “mail-in voting” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to ‘un-do’ the physical work or rescind the project.”, “alj_quote”: “The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “powers of ALJ”, “construction” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?”, “short_answer”: “No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The statute begins with ‘Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,’ meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA’s internal rules.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… ‘Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “governing documents”, “statutory interpretation”, “supremacy of law” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Order of the ALJ”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “fees”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?”, “short_answer”: “No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave ‘virtually no remedy’ for future procedural violations.”, “alj_quote”: “In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting results”, “procedural violations”, “compliance” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 23F-H020-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H020-REL”, “case_title”: “Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2023-02-17”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “ballots”, “assessments” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.”, “alj_quote”: “According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708”, “topic_tags”: [ “absentee ballots”, “voting”, “mail-in voting” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to ‘un-do’ the physical work or rescind the project.”, “alj_quote”: “The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “powers of ALJ”, “construction” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?”, “short_answer”: “No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The statute begins with ‘Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,’ meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA’s internal rules.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… ‘Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “governing documents”, “statutory interpretation”, “supremacy of law” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Order of the ALJ”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “fees”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?”, “short_answer”: “No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave ‘virtually no remedy’ for future procedural violations.”, “alj_quote”: “In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting results”, “procedural violations”, “compliance” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel Mayer (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Mr. D'Angelo (witness)
    Petitioner's husband

Respondent Side

  • Sandy Chambers (board president)
    Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; also referred to as 'Andrew Chambers' and 'Miss Chambers' in the transcript

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Miranda (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Front desk staff mentioned by ALJ
  • James Knupp (commissioner)
    ADRE
    Acting Commissioner listed on initial transmittal
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient

Other Participants

  • jzipprich (property manager)
    Desert Management
    Email contact for Respondent HOA