Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

David & Brenda Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David and Brenda Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) / Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against Rancho Del Lago Community Association, finding that the Department of Real Estate did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it was essentially a conflict between neighboring owners (Petitioners and Hendersons) regarding a wall.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction over the dispute among or between owners, per A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by HOA approving a block wall built by neighbors (Hendersons)

Petitioners alleged that Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) by approving a block wall built by their next-door neighbors, the Hendersons, and requested the Department require the Hendersons to permit Petitioners to connect to the wall or require the Hendersons to tear the wall down.

Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily among or between owners to which the association is not a party, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • 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. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Jurisdiction, HOA Governance, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Party Wall, Neighbor Dispute, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • 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. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 710478.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:10 (150.0 KB)

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 711115.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:10 (149.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919051-REL


Case Briefing: Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919051-REL, involving homeowners David and Brenda Norman (Petitioners) and the Rancho Del Lago Community Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the Petitioners’ allegation that the Respondent’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) violated community guidelines by approving a wall built by the Petitioners’ neighbors, the Hendersons.

The Petitioners claimed the Henderson’s wall, constructed 6 inches inside the property line, created a situation where any wall they might build on their property would be a “closely parallel wall,” which is prohibited by the community’s Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1). They requested that the Respondent either force the Hendersons to allow the Petitioners to connect to their wall, effectively making it a shared “party wall,” or compel the Hendersons to demolish it.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely. The primary legal basis for the dismissal was a lack of jurisdiction; under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), the Arizona Department of Real Estate cannot hear disputes solely between homeowners in which the association is not a party. The judge concluded this was fundamentally a neighbor-versus-neighbor conflict. Furthermore, the judge characterized the wall the Petitioners sought to build as an “archetypical spite fence” and noted that the Petitioners had failed to prove the Respondent had violated any community documents.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Entities

Name/Entity

Description

Petitioners

David and Brenda Norman

Homeowners in the Rancho Del Lago Community.

Respondent

Rancho Del Lago Community Association

The homeowners’ association (HOA) for the community.

Neighbors

The Hendersons

The Petitioners’ next-door neighbors who built the disputed wall.

Management Co.

Management Solutions

The company managing the Respondent HOA.

Witness (Respondent)

Spencer Brod

Employee of Management Solutions overseeing the Respondent’s affairs.

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Presiding judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Regulating Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

State agency authorized to hear certain HOA disputes.

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings

Independent state agency that conducted the evidentiary hearing.

Procedural Details

Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H1919051-REL

Petition Filed

On or about February 28, 2019

Hearing Date

May 8, 2019

Amended Decision Date

May 28, 2019

Timeline of Key Events

• December 2003: The Respondent’s ARC adopts the Common Project Guidelines, which govern all exterior improvements.

• March 8, 2017: The Hendersons submit an Architectural Variance Request (AVR) to extend the common wall between their property and the Petitioners’. Mrs. Norman signs the request, giving consent. The ARC approves this request.

• April 27, 2017: The Hendersons submit a new AVR to build a wall extension 6 inches inside their property line, making it a private wall rather than a shared party wall. The record suggests Mrs. Norman may have rescinded her earlier approval for the common wall.

• May 10, 2017: The ARC approves the Hendersons’ request to build the wall 6 inches inside their property line.

• September 5, 2017: The Petitioners submit an AVR to build an 11-foot wide concrete driveway. The ARC denies the request.

• Post-September 5, 2017: Despite the denial, the Petitioners construct the 11-foot wide driveway and are subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by the Respondent.

• September 7, 2017: The Petitioners submit an AVR to build a wall extension on their property, positioned at least 3 feet away from the Hendersons’ wall.

• October 13, 2017: The ARC approves the Petitioners’ wall extension request.

• Post-October 13, 2017: The Petitioners decide not to build the approved wall, stating their contractor advised them against “giving up” the 3 feet of property that would lie between the two walls.

• By November 2017: The Hendersons’ wall appears to have been constructed.

• February 28, 2019: The Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Respondent violated community rules.

• March 27, 2019: The Petitioners file a new AVR to build a wall directly on the property line. This request did not include the Hendersons’ required consent and was still pending at the time of the hearing.

Governing Documents and Key Provisions

The dispute and subsequent legal decision referenced several specific articles from the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Common Project Guidelines.

Document

Provision

Description

Article I § (p)

Defines “Party Walls” built on a property line, establishing equal right of use, joint responsibility for maintenance and repair, and a process for the Board to resolve disputes over construction or cost-sharing.

Article II § 2(a)

Requires prior written approval from the ARC for any improvements that alter the exterior appearance of a property.

Article XII § 1

Establishes the ARC, noting that its decisions are “sole, absolute and final on all matters submitted to it.”

Common Project Guidelines

Section 3.11(D)(1)

States that “Closely parallel walls shall be disapproved.” The term “closely parallel” is not defined in the guidelines. This provision was the central focus of the Petitioners’ complaint.

Common Project Guidelines

Section 4.21

Grants the ARC the right “to waive, vary, or otherwise modify any of the standards or procedures set forth herein at its discretion, for good cause shown.”

Summary of Testimony and Evidence

Testimony of Brenda Norman (Petitioner)

• Motivation for Wall: Stated that she and her husband are in law enforcement and want to enclose their side yard to protect utility meters from potential vandalism.

• Reason for Not Building Approved Wall: Explained that their contractor advised them it was “crazy to give up the 3’ of property” that would be inaccessible between their proposed wall and the Hendersons’ wall.

• Relationship with Neighbors: Acknowledged that the Petitioners “do not get along very well with the Hendersons” and therefore never asked for their consent for a wall on the property line.

• Belief Regarding Parallel Walls: Believes that if she submitted a plan for a wall just inside her property line, it would be denied under the “close parallel wall” rule.

• Requested Action: Opined that the Respondent should force the Hendersons to tear down their wall because it is not uniformly 6 inches from the property line.

Testimony of Spencer Brod (for Respondent)

• HOA Policy: Testified that the HOA “never gets involved in disputes between neighbors” and that it is the homeowner’s responsibility to obtain neighbor consent for common wall projects.

• Party vs. Private Walls: Explained that neighbor consent is required only for “party walls” on the property line due to shared maintenance liability. The Hendersons’ wall was approved because it was on their own property and therefore not a party wall.

• Enforcement and Inspection: Admitted that the Hendersons’ wall may not be uniformly 6 inches from the line but stated the Respondent has no one to perform a “thorough inspection” and had not sent a violation letter.

• “Closely Parallel Walls” Interpretation: Testified that while the term is undefined, the ARC’s approval of the Petitioners’ plan for a wall 3 feet away indicates that “closely parallel” means a distance of less than 3 feet.

• Petitioners’ Unauthorized Construction: Confirmed that the Respondent sent the Petitioners a Notice of Violation for building a driveway that the ARC had explicitly denied.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law

The judge’s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, governing documents, and relevant state law.

1. Jurisdictional Failure: The primary reason for dismissal was a lack of jurisdiction. The judge cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), which explicitly states, “The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.” The judge determined this was a quintessential neighbor dispute, not a dispute with the HOA.

2. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated its own rules. The judge found they failed to do so.

3. Characterization as a “Spite Fence”: The decision describes the wall the Petitioners wish to build as an “archetypical spite fence between neighbors who cannot agree to mutually work for the improvement of their adjacent properties.”

4. HOA’s Limited Role: The judge affirmed that neither the CC&Rs nor the Common Project Guidelines compel the HOA to mediate or resolve disputes between neighbors by taking a side.

5. Distinction of Wall Types: The analysis distinguished between a party wall on a property line, which requires neighbor consent, and a private wall built entirely on one owner’s property, which does not. The Hendersons’ wall was approved as the latter.

6. Hypothetical Outcome: A concluding footnote in the decision states that even if the Department had jurisdiction, the Petitioners had not established that Guideline 3.11(D)(1) would authorize or require the Respondent to grant the relief they requested.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against the Respondent, Rancho Del Lago Community Association, is dismissed. The dismissal is based on the finding that the Arizona Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to hear their dispute with the Hendersons.


Travis Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Travis Prall Counsel —
Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Pierce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs because there was no credible evidence that the disputed landscaping (tree) had been originally installed by the developer.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the landscaping was originally installed by the Declarant, which was a prerequisite for HOA maintenance responsibility under the relevant CC&R section.

Key Issues & Findings

Neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R Section 7.1.4 by failing to maintain a tree in his back yard, arguing the back yard qualified as a 'Public Yard' and the tree was originally installed by the Declarant.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance, CC&R interpretation, burden of proof, landscaping
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818053-REL-RHG Decision – 686236.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:06:19 (116.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG


Briefing: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA Dispute

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and legal rationale from a homeowners’ association dispute between Petitioner Travis Prall and Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena HOA. The case centered on whether the HOA was responsible for maintaining a tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by neglecting maintenance in what he defined as a “Public Yard.”

The dispute was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, resulting in two decisions, an initial ruling and a subsequent ruling on rehearing, both of which dismissed the Petitioner’s case. The critical takeaway is that the case was decided not on the ambiguous definition of “Public” versus “Private” yards, but on a crucial qualifying clause in the CC&Rs. Section 7.1.4 obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping only “as originally installed by Declarant.”

The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the tree in question was part of the original developer’s landscaping. Conversely, the HOA presented credible testimony from an early homeowner and board member stating that all backyards in the community were sold as “just dirt,” with no developer-installed landscaping or irrigation. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner’s arguments were based on “suppositions and inferences” and did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim.

Case Overview

This dispute was initiated by a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue was the interpretation of HOA maintenance responsibilities as defined in the community’s governing documents.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

18F-H1818053-REL

Petitioner

Travis Prall

Respondent

Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Initial Hearing

September 4, 2018

Initial Decision

September 24, 2018 (Petition Dismissed)

Rehearing

January 11, 2019

Final Decision

January 31, 2019 (Petition Dismissed)

Timeline of Key Events

• 2010: Petitioner Travis Prall purchases his home, an “interior” unit, and believes the HOA is responsible for both front and backyard maintenance.

• July 26, 2014: A storm knocks over a large tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. He pays for its removal while asserting it was the HOA’s responsibility.

• Post-2014: The tree regrows from its remaining trunk.

• 2018: The HOA observes that the regrown tree’s roots are causing a “pony wall” to buckle and hires Sun King Fencing & Gates to perform repairs. The repair company recommends removing the tree to prevent recurrence.

• May 3, 2018: The HOA issues a “Courtesy Letter” to the Petitioner, requesting he “trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”

• June 4, 2018: In response, the Petitioner files a Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the legal proceedings.

Central Allegation and Dispute

The Petitioner alleged that the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of its CC&Rs by “neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards.” His central claim was that his backyard, though enclosed, qualifies as a “Public Yard” under the CC&Rs and that the HOA was therefore responsible for the maintenance and removal of the problematic tree. The HOA’s demand that he handle the tree himself constituted, in his view, a violation of their duties.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

The case presented conflicting interpretations of the CC&Rs and opposing accounts of historical maintenance practices.

Petitioner’s Position (Travis Prall)

The Petitioner’s case was built on his interpretation of the CC&Rs and inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that his backyard is a “Public Yard” because, while enclosed by a four-foot wall (two-foot block plus two-foot aluminum fence), it is “generally visible from Neighboring Property” via a community walkway.

• Claim of Prior Maintenance: Testified that from 2010 to 2013, the HOA did provide landscaping maintenance for his backyard.

• Inferences about Original Landscaping:

◦ Posited that the large size of the tree in 2010 indicated it must have been planted by the original developer around 2000.

◦ Argued that the similar design of irrigation systems across the community suggested they were all installed during original construction, including those in backyards.

◦ Noted that the sprinkler system in his backyard wrapped around the tree, further suggesting they were installed together by the developer.

Respondent’s Position (Villas at Tierra Buena HOA)

The Respondent’s defense relied on its own interpretation of the CC&Rs, consistent historical practice, and direct testimony regarding the community’s development.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that an “enclosed” yard is, by definition, a “Private Yard,” making the homeowner responsible for its maintenance.

• Denial of Prior Maintenance: Stated unequivocally that it had never provided landscaping services for any resident’s backyard. Its responsibility is limited to front yards and common areas.

• Practical and Liability Concerns: Argued that it has no access to control backyard irrigation systems and that its workers entering enclosed yards would create liability issues, such as pets escaping.

• Crucial Rehearing Testimony: Presented testimony from Maureen Karpinski, the HOA Board President.

◦ Ms. Karpinski, a real estate agent, purchased her home from the developer in 2002 and was involved with the community during its construction phase.

◦ She testified with certainty that her backyard was “just dirt” with no landscaping or irrigation when she purchased it.

◦ She stated that, to the best of her knowledge, “none of the homes in Respondent’s community were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the back yards and were just dirt.”

Interpretation of Governing CC&R Sections

The dispute revolved around the specific language in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

Section

Provision

Significance in the Case

The HOA must “Replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots…“

This became the dispositive clause. The Petitioner’s entire claim depended on proving the tree was “originally installed by Declarant.”

“Private Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is enclosed or shielded from view… so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property. “Public Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is generally visible from Neighboring Property…

This created a central point of interpretive conflict. The Petitioner argued the clause meant “enclosed and not visible,” while the HOA argued it meant “enclosed or shielded.” The Judge ultimately did not rule on this ambiguity.

“Visible from Neighboring Property” means… visible to a person six feet tall standing on any part of such neighboring property…

This definition supported the Petitioner’s claim that his backyard was, in fact, “visible” from the common area walkway.

Administrative Law Judge’s Rulings and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the Petitioner’s case in both the initial hearing and the rehearing, focusing on the burden of proof related to a single, critical phrase in the CC&Rs.

Initial Decision (September 24, 2018)

• Avoidance of Ambiguity: The ALJ acknowledged the potential merit of the Petitioner’s interpretation of “Public Yard,” stating “the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards of the interior homes.” However, the ALJ concluded the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue in this matter.”

• Focus on “Originally Installed by Declarant”: The decision hinged entirely on Section 7.1.4. The ALJ found that the “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that the tree at issue was originally installed by the Declarant.”

• Lack of Proof: The ALJ noted that the tree’s rapid regrowth from 2013 to 2018 made it impossible to conclude that the original tree must have been planted by the developer in 2000.

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof, and the petition was dismissed.

Rehearing Decision (January 31, 2019)

• Rejection of Petitioner’s Inferences: The ALJ characterized the Petitioner’s evidence regarding the tree’s age and the irrigation system as “suppositions and inferences.”

• Credibility of Respondent’s Testimony: In contrast, the ALJ found the testimony of HOA President Maureen Karpinski to be “the only credible evidence offered regarding the landscaping of the homes.”

• Definitive Factual Finding: Based on Ms. Karpinski’s testimony, the ALJ concluded there was “no evidence there was any landscaping or improvements originally installed by Declarant.”

• Final Conclusion: As the precondition of Section 7.1.4 (that landscaping be “originally installed by Declarant”) was not met, the HOA had no maintenance duty for the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner again failed to establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and the petition was dismissed with finality.


Travis Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Travis Prall Counsel —
Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Pierce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs because there was no credible evidence that the disputed landscaping (tree) had been originally installed by the developer.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the landscaping was originally installed by the Declarant, which was a prerequisite for HOA maintenance responsibility under the relevant CC&R section.

Key Issues & Findings

Neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R Section 7.1.4 by failing to maintain a tree in his back yard, arguing the back yard qualified as a 'Public Yard' and the tree was originally installed by the Declarant.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance, CC&R interpretation, burden of proof, landscaping
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818053-REL-RHG Decision – 686236.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:07 (116.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG


Briefing: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA Dispute

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and legal rationale from a homeowners’ association dispute between Petitioner Travis Prall and Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena HOA. The case centered on whether the HOA was responsible for maintaining a tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by neglecting maintenance in what he defined as a “Public Yard.”

The dispute was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, resulting in two decisions, an initial ruling and a subsequent ruling on rehearing, both of which dismissed the Petitioner’s case. The critical takeaway is that the case was decided not on the ambiguous definition of “Public” versus “Private” yards, but on a crucial qualifying clause in the CC&Rs. Section 7.1.4 obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping only “as originally installed by Declarant.”

The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the tree in question was part of the original developer’s landscaping. Conversely, the HOA presented credible testimony from an early homeowner and board member stating that all backyards in the community were sold as “just dirt,” with no developer-installed landscaping or irrigation. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner’s arguments were based on “suppositions and inferences” and did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim.

Case Overview

This dispute was initiated by a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue was the interpretation of HOA maintenance responsibilities as defined in the community’s governing documents.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

18F-H1818053-REL

Petitioner

Travis Prall

Respondent

Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Initial Hearing

September 4, 2018

Initial Decision

September 24, 2018 (Petition Dismissed)

Rehearing

January 11, 2019

Final Decision

January 31, 2019 (Petition Dismissed)

Timeline of Key Events

• 2010: Petitioner Travis Prall purchases his home, an “interior” unit, and believes the HOA is responsible for both front and backyard maintenance.

• July 26, 2014: A storm knocks over a large tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. He pays for its removal while asserting it was the HOA’s responsibility.

• Post-2014: The tree regrows from its remaining trunk.

• 2018: The HOA observes that the regrown tree’s roots are causing a “pony wall” to buckle and hires Sun King Fencing & Gates to perform repairs. The repair company recommends removing the tree to prevent recurrence.

• May 3, 2018: The HOA issues a “Courtesy Letter” to the Petitioner, requesting he “trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”

• June 4, 2018: In response, the Petitioner files a Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the legal proceedings.

Central Allegation and Dispute

The Petitioner alleged that the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of its CC&Rs by “neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards.” His central claim was that his backyard, though enclosed, qualifies as a “Public Yard” under the CC&Rs and that the HOA was therefore responsible for the maintenance and removal of the problematic tree. The HOA’s demand that he handle the tree himself constituted, in his view, a violation of their duties.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

The case presented conflicting interpretations of the CC&Rs and opposing accounts of historical maintenance practices.

Petitioner’s Position (Travis Prall)

The Petitioner’s case was built on his interpretation of the CC&Rs and inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that his backyard is a “Public Yard” because, while enclosed by a four-foot wall (two-foot block plus two-foot aluminum fence), it is “generally visible from Neighboring Property” via a community walkway.

• Claim of Prior Maintenance: Testified that from 2010 to 2013, the HOA did provide landscaping maintenance for his backyard.

• Inferences about Original Landscaping:

◦ Posited that the large size of the tree in 2010 indicated it must have been planted by the original developer around 2000.

◦ Argued that the similar design of irrigation systems across the community suggested they were all installed during original construction, including those in backyards.

◦ Noted that the sprinkler system in his backyard wrapped around the tree, further suggesting they were installed together by the developer.

Respondent’s Position (Villas at Tierra Buena HOA)

The Respondent’s defense relied on its own interpretation of the CC&Rs, consistent historical practice, and direct testimony regarding the community’s development.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that an “enclosed” yard is, by definition, a “Private Yard,” making the homeowner responsible for its maintenance.

• Denial of Prior Maintenance: Stated unequivocally that it had never provided landscaping services for any resident’s backyard. Its responsibility is limited to front yards and common areas.

• Practical and Liability Concerns: Argued that it has no access to control backyard irrigation systems and that its workers entering enclosed yards would create liability issues, such as pets escaping.

• Crucial Rehearing Testimony: Presented testimony from Maureen Karpinski, the HOA Board President.

◦ Ms. Karpinski, a real estate agent, purchased her home from the developer in 2002 and was involved with the community during its construction phase.

◦ She testified with certainty that her backyard was “just dirt” with no landscaping or irrigation when she purchased it.

◦ She stated that, to the best of her knowledge, “none of the homes in Respondent’s community were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the back yards and were just dirt.”

Interpretation of Governing CC&R Sections

The dispute revolved around the specific language in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

Section

Provision

Significance in the Case

The HOA must “Replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots…“

This became the dispositive clause. The Petitioner’s entire claim depended on proving the tree was “originally installed by Declarant.”

“Private Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is enclosed or shielded from view… so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property. “Public Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is generally visible from Neighboring Property…

This created a central point of interpretive conflict. The Petitioner argued the clause meant “enclosed and not visible,” while the HOA argued it meant “enclosed or shielded.” The Judge ultimately did not rule on this ambiguity.

“Visible from Neighboring Property” means… visible to a person six feet tall standing on any part of such neighboring property…

This definition supported the Petitioner’s claim that his backyard was, in fact, “visible” from the common area walkway.

Administrative Law Judge’s Rulings and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the Petitioner’s case in both the initial hearing and the rehearing, focusing on the burden of proof related to a single, critical phrase in the CC&Rs.

Initial Decision (September 24, 2018)

• Avoidance of Ambiguity: The ALJ acknowledged the potential merit of the Petitioner’s interpretation of “Public Yard,” stating “the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards of the interior homes.” However, the ALJ concluded the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue in this matter.”

• Focus on “Originally Installed by Declarant”: The decision hinged entirely on Section 7.1.4. The ALJ found that the “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that the tree at issue was originally installed by the Declarant.”

• Lack of Proof: The ALJ noted that the tree’s rapid regrowth from 2013 to 2018 made it impossible to conclude that the original tree must have been planted by the developer in 2000.

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof, and the petition was dismissed.

Rehearing Decision (January 31, 2019)

• Rejection of Petitioner’s Inferences: The ALJ characterized the Petitioner’s evidence regarding the tree’s age and the irrigation system as “suppositions and inferences.”

• Credibility of Respondent’s Testimony: In contrast, the ALJ found the testimony of HOA President Maureen Karpinski to be “the only credible evidence offered regarding the landscaping of the homes.”

• Definitive Factual Finding: Based on Ms. Karpinski’s testimony, the ALJ concluded there was “no evidence there was any landscaping or improvements originally installed by Declarant.”

• Final Conclusion: As the precondition of Section 7.1.4 (that landscaping be “originally installed by Declarant”) was not met, the HOA had no maintenance duty for the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner again failed to establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and the petition was dismissed with finality.


John W. Gray vs. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918004-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-11-30
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome win
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John W. Gray Counsel —
Respondent Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association Counsel Austin Baillio, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the Respondent's violations of the CC&Rs and rules concerning parking enforcement. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce parking rules (vehicle limits, garage use, inoperable vehicles)

Petitioner alleged that the HOA refused to enforce parking rules regarding vehicle limits, requiring use of garages for first cars, and banning inoperable or commercial vehicles, despite written complaints. The ALJ found the HOA failed to enforce these rules or issue proper notices/fines.

Orders: MCIII ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • MCIII Rules and Regulations #2 and #3
  • MCIII CC&Rs 4.12
  • MCIII CC&Rs 4.13
  • MCIII CC&Rs 4.14

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, Parking Rules, Filing Fee Refund, Inoperable Vehicle, CC&R Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918004-REL Decision – 674057.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:06:41 (139.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918004-REL


Briefing Document: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (Case No. 19F-H1918004-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of John W. Gray (Petitioner) versus the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII, Respondent). The central issue was MCIII’s failure to enforce its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and community rules regarding vehicle parking.

The Petitioner, Mr. Gray, presented credible and convincing evidence of widespread, ongoing parking violations by multiple residents, including exceeding vehicle limits, failing to use garages for primary parking, and the long-term storage of an inoperable vehicle in a common area parking space. The Respondent, MCIII, argued that the rules were difficult to enforce and that it had taken some action, including revising the rules shortly before the hearing.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately rejected MCIII’s defense, concluding that the association had demonstrably failed to enforce its governing documents. The ALJ found that MCIII had viable enforcement options, such as issuing notices and fines, which it did not utilize. The final order deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party and required MCIII to reimburse his $500 filing fee.

Case Overview

• Parties Involved:

◦ Petitioner: John W. Gray, owner of Unit 122 in the Mesa Coronado III Condominium development.

◦ Respondent: Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the unit owners’ association for the 33-unit development.

• Adjudicating Body: The Office of Administrative Hearings, following a referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Hearing Date: October 29, 2018.

• Decision Date: November 30, 2018.

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that MCIII violated its own Rules, Regulations, and CC&Rs (specifically Articles 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14) by refusing to enforce parking rules despite receiving written complaints.

Background and Timeline of the Dispute

The conflict centered on parking within the MCIII development, which has 36 parking spaces for 33 units, with spaces being “open” and not assigned to specific units (with one exception).

• Pre-existing Rules (Adopted Jan. 2002):

◦ Owners were limited to two cars per unit.

◦ The garage was considered the “assigned” parking for the first car.

◦ Inoperable vehicles were banned from the property.

◦ A system of warnings and fines was in place for rule violations.

• May 17, 2018: Petitioner Gray submitted a formal written complaint to MCIII, identifying at least eight units in violation of parking rules. His complaint specified:

◦ Units with three cars were not using their garages for parking, instead using them for storage.

◦ An inoperable red truck had been stationary in the same parking spot for over a year.

◦ A commercial truck was present containing what he believed to be hazardous pool chemicals.

• MCIII’s Initial Response: The association acknowledged a “history” with the parking situation and stated the Board would review the rules for revision. MCIII noted it would investigate the red truck and also accused the Petitioner of regularly parking his own truck in a fire lane.

• July 16, 2018: The Petitioner sent a follow-up notification regarding the continuing violations.

• MCIII’s Second Response: The association informed the Petitioner that the issue would be on the agenda for the July 24, 2018 Board meeting and again reminded him of his own alleged fire lane parking violations.

• July 23, 2018: MCIII sent a notice to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck, informing them of the rules violation.

• July 30, 2018: The Petitioner filed his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• October 23, 2018: Days before the hearing, the MCIII Board adopted new parking rules.

Petitioner’s Case and Evidence (John W. Gray)

The Petitioner built a detailed case demonstrating a pattern of non-enforcement by MCIII. The ALJ found his evidence to be “credible and convincing.”

• Specific Violations Alleged:

◦ Excess Vehicles: Multiple units possessed more than the two-vehicle limit.

◦ Garage Misuse: Residents with multiple cars were using common area parking spaces while their garages were used for storage.

◦ Inoperable Vehicle: A red truck remained parked and inoperable in one space for over a year, in direct violation of CC&R 4.14.

• Evidence Presented at Hearing:

◦ Photographs: A series of exhibits (6 through 16) contained photographs documenting the various offending vehicles.

◦ Private Investigation: The Petitioner hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to link specific vehicles to their owners and units (Exhibit 17).

◦ Quantitative Analysis: The Petitioner calculated that just 12 units were occupying 27 common area parking spaces, leaving very few spaces for the remaining 21 units.

◦ Written Correspondence: Copies of his complaints to MCIII were submitted, demonstrating that the association was put on notice of the violations.

Respondent’s Defense and Actions (MCIII)

The association’s defense centered on the difficulty of enforcement and subsequent actions taken after the Petitioner’s complaint.

• Core Arguments:

◦ Unenforceability: MCIII asserted that it was “almost impossible” to enforce the existing restrictive rules, as it would require constant 24/7 monitoring.

◦ Lack of Prior Complaints: The Respondent claimed it had received no complaints about parking prior to Mr. Gray’s.

◦ Issue is Moot: MCIII argued that its recent revision of the parking rules rendered the Petitioner’s complaint moot.

• Actions Taken by MCIII:

◦ Rule Revision: At the October 23, 2018 Board meeting, MCIII adopted new rules that eliminated the two-car limit but maintained the requirement for residents to use their garage first before occupying common area spaces. The ban on inoperable and commercial vehicles was also kept.

◦ Enforcement Against Petitioner: The Respondent noted that it had previously taken enforcement action by having the Petitioner’s own truck towed for parking in a fire lane.

◦ Notice Regarding Red Truck: MCIII provided evidence that it sent one letter on July 23, 2018, regarding the inoperable red truck.

◦ Towing Contract: The association stated it had recently contracted with Shaffer Towing for towing services.

◦ Community Manager Patrols: The “Community Manager,” Andrea Lacombe, testified that she drove through the property approximately twice a month looking for violations.

Governing Rules and CC&Rs

The decision rested on the specific language of the association’s governing documents in effect at the time of the complaint.

Document

Article/Rule

Provision

Rules & Regulations (Jan 2002)

Rule 3

Limits owners to two cars per unit and “assigns” the garage as parking for the first car.

CC&Rs (Jan 1999)

Art. 4.12

Prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles, RVs, boats, trailers, etc., on any part of the condominium outside of an enclosed garage.

CC&Rs (Jan 1999)

Art. 4.13

States that no parking space may be used for storage or any purpose other than parking of Family Vehicles. Grants the Board the right to assign spaces.

CC&Rs (Jan 1999)

Art. 4.14

Prohibits the storage of inoperable vehicles on any portion of the condominium other than within enclosed garages. Grants the Board the right to have violating vehicles towed.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ sided with the Petitioner, finding that MCIII had failed in its duty to enforce its own rules.

• Rejection of MCIII’s Defense: The ALJ determined that MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable was “not a viable defense.” The decision explicitly stated that the association could have used provisions for notification and fines to enforce the rules but failed to do so.

• Evidence of Non-Enforcement: The hearing record demonstrated a clear failure by MCIII to act.

◦ The evidence was “undisputed” that the inoperable red truck had been in violation for over a year, yet MCIII only sent a single notice long after the complaint was filed.

◦ The ALJ noted that clearing even that one space would have improved the “tenuous parking situation.”

◦ The record contained no indication that MCIII had ever enforced the rules regarding the number of vehicles or the mandatory use of garages for primary parking.

◦ The only enforcement action cited, other than the single letter, was the towing of the Petitioner’s own vehicle.

• Conclusion of Law: Based on the evidence, the ALJ concluded that “MCIII failed to enforce CC&Rs and rules and regulations regarding parking.” The revision of the rules just before the hearing did not negate the past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the Petitioner’s complaint.

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued a binding order with two key provisions:

1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, John W. Gray, is officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Reimbursement: MCIII is ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.


John W. Gray vs. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918004-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-11-30
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome win
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John W. Gray Counsel —
Respondent Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association Counsel Austin Baillio, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the Respondent's violations of the CC&Rs and rules concerning parking enforcement. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce parking rules (vehicle limits, garage use, inoperable vehicles)

Petitioner alleged that the HOA refused to enforce parking rules regarding vehicle limits, requiring use of garages for first cars, and banning inoperable or commercial vehicles, despite written complaints. The ALJ found the HOA failed to enforce these rules or issue proper notices/fines.

Orders: MCIII ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • MCIII Rules and Regulations #2 and #3
  • MCIII CC&Rs 4.12
  • MCIII CC&Rs 4.13
  • MCIII CC&Rs 4.14

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, Parking Rules, Filing Fee Refund, Inoperable Vehicle, CC&R Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918004-REL Decision – 674057.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:18 (139.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918004-REL


Briefing Document: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (Case No. 19F-H1918004-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of John W. Gray (Petitioner) versus the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII, Respondent). The central issue was MCIII’s failure to enforce its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and community rules regarding vehicle parking.

The Petitioner, Mr. Gray, presented credible and convincing evidence of widespread, ongoing parking violations by multiple residents, including exceeding vehicle limits, failing to use garages for primary parking, and the long-term storage of an inoperable vehicle in a common area parking space. The Respondent, MCIII, argued that the rules were difficult to enforce and that it had taken some action, including revising the rules shortly before the hearing.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately rejected MCIII’s defense, concluding that the association had demonstrably failed to enforce its governing documents. The ALJ found that MCIII had viable enforcement options, such as issuing notices and fines, which it did not utilize. The final order deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party and required MCIII to reimburse his $500 filing fee.

Case Overview

• Parties Involved:

◦ Petitioner: John W. Gray, owner of Unit 122 in the Mesa Coronado III Condominium development.

◦ Respondent: Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the unit owners’ association for the 33-unit development.

• Adjudicating Body: The Office of Administrative Hearings, following a referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Hearing Date: October 29, 2018.

• Decision Date: November 30, 2018.

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that MCIII violated its own Rules, Regulations, and CC&Rs (specifically Articles 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14) by refusing to enforce parking rules despite receiving written complaints.

Background and Timeline of the Dispute

The conflict centered on parking within the MCIII development, which has 36 parking spaces for 33 units, with spaces being “open” and not assigned to specific units (with one exception).

• Pre-existing Rules (Adopted Jan. 2002):

◦ Owners were limited to two cars per unit.

◦ The garage was considered the “assigned” parking for the first car.

◦ Inoperable vehicles were banned from the property.

◦ A system of warnings and fines was in place for rule violations.

• May 17, 2018: Petitioner Gray submitted a formal written complaint to MCIII, identifying at least eight units in violation of parking rules. His complaint specified:

◦ Units with three cars were not using their garages for parking, instead using them for storage.

◦ An inoperable red truck had been stationary in the same parking spot for over a year.

◦ A commercial truck was present containing what he believed to be hazardous pool chemicals.

• MCIII’s Initial Response: The association acknowledged a “history” with the parking situation and stated the Board would review the rules for revision. MCIII noted it would investigate the red truck and also accused the Petitioner of regularly parking his own truck in a fire lane.

• July 16, 2018: The Petitioner sent a follow-up notification regarding the continuing violations.

• MCIII’s Second Response: The association informed the Petitioner that the issue would be on the agenda for the July 24, 2018 Board meeting and again reminded him of his own alleged fire lane parking violations.

• July 23, 2018: MCIII sent a notice to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck, informing them of the rules violation.

• July 30, 2018: The Petitioner filed his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• October 23, 2018: Days before the hearing, the MCIII Board adopted new parking rules.

Petitioner’s Case and Evidence (John W. Gray)

The Petitioner built a detailed case demonstrating a pattern of non-enforcement by MCIII. The ALJ found his evidence to be “credible and convincing.”

• Specific Violations Alleged:

◦ Excess Vehicles: Multiple units possessed more than the two-vehicle limit.

◦ Garage Misuse: Residents with multiple cars were using common area parking spaces while their garages were used for storage.

◦ Inoperable Vehicle: A red truck remained parked and inoperable in one space for over a year, in direct violation of CC&R 4.14.

• Evidence Presented at Hearing:

◦ Photographs: A series of exhibits (6 through 16) contained photographs documenting the various offending vehicles.

◦ Private Investigation: The Petitioner hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to link specific vehicles to their owners and units (Exhibit 17).

◦ Quantitative Analysis: The Petitioner calculated that just 12 units were occupying 27 common area parking spaces, leaving very few spaces for the remaining 21 units.

◦ Written Correspondence: Copies of his complaints to MCIII were submitted, demonstrating that the association was put on notice of the violations.

Respondent’s Defense and Actions (MCIII)

The association’s defense centered on the difficulty of enforcement and subsequent actions taken after the Petitioner’s complaint.

• Core Arguments:

◦ Unenforceability: MCIII asserted that it was “almost impossible” to enforce the existing restrictive rules, as it would require constant 24/7 monitoring.

◦ Lack of Prior Complaints: The Respondent claimed it had received no complaints about parking prior to Mr. Gray’s.

◦ Issue is Moot: MCIII argued that its recent revision of the parking rules rendered the Petitioner’s complaint moot.

• Actions Taken by MCIII:

◦ Rule Revision: At the October 23, 2018 Board meeting, MCIII adopted new rules that eliminated the two-car limit but maintained the requirement for residents to use their garage first before occupying common area spaces. The ban on inoperable and commercial vehicles was also kept.

◦ Enforcement Against Petitioner: The Respondent noted that it had previously taken enforcement action by having the Petitioner’s own truck towed for parking in a fire lane.

◦ Notice Regarding Red Truck: MCIII provided evidence that it sent one letter on July 23, 2018, regarding the inoperable red truck.

◦ Towing Contract: The association stated it had recently contracted with Shaffer Towing for towing services.

◦ Community Manager Patrols: The “Community Manager,” Andrea Lacombe, testified that she drove through the property approximately twice a month looking for violations.

Governing Rules and CC&Rs

The decision rested on the specific language of the association’s governing documents in effect at the time of the complaint.

Document

Article/Rule

Provision

Rules & Regulations (Jan 2002)

Rule 3

Limits owners to two cars per unit and “assigns” the garage as parking for the first car.

CC&Rs (Jan 1999)

Art. 4.12

Prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles, RVs, boats, trailers, etc., on any part of the condominium outside of an enclosed garage.

CC&Rs (Jan 1999)

Art. 4.13

States that no parking space may be used for storage or any purpose other than parking of Family Vehicles. Grants the Board the right to assign spaces.

CC&Rs (Jan 1999)

Art. 4.14

Prohibits the storage of inoperable vehicles on any portion of the condominium other than within enclosed garages. Grants the Board the right to have violating vehicles towed.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ sided with the Petitioner, finding that MCIII had failed in its duty to enforce its own rules.

• Rejection of MCIII’s Defense: The ALJ determined that MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable was “not a viable defense.” The decision explicitly stated that the association could have used provisions for notification and fines to enforce the rules but failed to do so.

• Evidence of Non-Enforcement: The hearing record demonstrated a clear failure by MCIII to act.

◦ The evidence was “undisputed” that the inoperable red truck had been in violation for over a year, yet MCIII only sent a single notice long after the complaint was filed.

◦ The ALJ noted that clearing even that one space would have improved the “tenuous parking situation.”

◦ The record contained no indication that MCIII had ever enforced the rules regarding the number of vehicles or the mandatory use of garages for primary parking.

◦ The only enforcement action cited, other than the single letter, was the towing of the Petitioner’s own vehicle.

• Conclusion of Law: Based on the evidence, the ALJ concluded that “MCIII failed to enforce CC&Rs and rules and regulations regarding parking.” The revision of the rules just before the hearing did not negate the past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the Petitioner’s complaint.

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued a binding order with two key provisions:

1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, John W. Gray, is officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Reimbursement: MCIII is ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.


Brent J Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brent J. Mathews Counsel —
Respondent American Ranch Community Association Counsel Lynn Krupnik and Timothy Krupnik

Alleged Violations

American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the Respondent Board violated the Bylaws. The Board was found to have the necessary authority under Bylaws Section 3.11 to enter into the Well Agreement 2 as a variance, and this action did not constitute an improper amendment of the CC&Rs.

Why this result: The Board was authorized to grant a variance to the CC&Rs regarding the well on Lot 2, a power delegated to the Association, meaning the Board did not exceed its authority under the Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11, when the Board entered into the 'Well Agreement' (Well Agreement 2).

Petitioner asserted that the Board violated the Bylaws by entering into Well Agreement 2, claiming the Board lacked the authority to grant exceptions or variances to the CC&Rs regarding the use of a private water well on Lot 2. The Board agreed the well existed in violation of CC&Rs Section 3.26, but argued Well Agreement 2 constituted a variance, not an amendment.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, Bylaws 3.11, CC&Rs, Variance, Amendment, Well Agreement, Burden of Proof, Dismissal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818050-REL Decision – 664186.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:06:00 (112.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818050-REL


Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Mathews vs. American Ranch Community Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818050-REL, a dispute between Petitioner Brent J. Mathews and the Respondent, American Ranch Community Association. The petition, filed on May 16, 2018, was ultimately dismissed by the ALJ on October 11, 2018.

The core of the dispute was the American Ranch Board of Directors’ authority to enter into a “Well Agreement” on August 9, 2016, with the owners of Lot 2. This agreement permitted the continued use of a private well for irrigation, an activity explicitly prohibited by the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Petitioner argued that this agreement constituted an unauthorized amendment to the CC&Rs, an action requiring a 75% vote of the membership, and therefore violated the Board’s powers as defined in the community’s Bylaws.

The ALJ’s decision hinged on the critical legal distinction between a “variance” and an “amendment.” The Judge concluded that the Board’s action was not an amendment but a variance granted to an individual owner. The ruling established that the community’s governing documents delegate the power to grant variances to the Architectural Review Committee. According to the Bylaws, the Board of Directors is empowered to exercise any authority delegated to the Association that is not exclusively reserved for the membership. As the power to grant variances was not reserved for the membership, the Board acted within its authority. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of the case.

Case Overview

Case Name

Brent J. Mathews vs. American Ranch Community Association

Case Number

18F-H1818050-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Petitioner

Brent J. Mathews (representing himself)

Respondent

American Ranch Community Association (represented by Lynn Krupnik and Timothy Krupnik)

Hearing Date

September 21, 2018

Decision Date

October 11, 2018

Final Ruling

The Petition is dismissed.

The Central Dispute: The Well Agreement for Lot 2

The conflict originated from a water well installed on Lot 2 of the American Ranch community around 2007. This installation was in direct violation of the CC&Rs.

• CC&R Section 3.26 (Water Wells): This section explicitly states, “The placement, drilling and operation of water wells is prohibited on all Lots except Equestrian Lots.” The use of any approved well on an Equestrian Lot is further restricted to irrigating pasture land and providing drinking water for horses.

To address the existing violation, the Association’s Board entered into two separate agreements over several years.

1. Well Agreement 1 (June 2011): The Board and the then-owners of Lot 2 entered into an agreement that allowed the continued use of the well for irrigation. A key provision required the owners to install a water meter and pay the Association a per-gallon charge equivalent to the local water district’s rate. The Board later determined it lacked the authority to bill homeowners for water from a private well, viewing this function as the responsibility of the water district, which rendered this agreement problematic.

2. Well Agreement 2 (August 9, 2016): This agreement, the subject of the legal dispute, was executed with new prospective buyers, Mark and Diane Kaplan. The Kaplans, upon discovering Well Agreement 1 during escrow, expressed concerns and stated they would be “unable to proceed with the purchase” without clarification. Under time pressure, the Board executed Well Agreement 2, which invalidated the first agreement. The new agreement permitted the well’s continued use for irrigation purposes but stipulated that “the owners would not be billed for the water used.”

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

After initially alleging multiple violations, including an “Open Meeting Violation,” Petitioner Brent J. Mathews was directed to clarify his claim to a single issue. His final argument focused on a specific alleged violation of the Association’s governing documents.

• Clarified Single Issue: The Petitioner asserted that the Board violated American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11, which outlines the Board’s powers and duties. His formal clarification stated: “When the Board entered into the ‘Well Agreement’ they may have assumed they had the power to grant exceptions to the CC&R’s. The American Ranch Community Association Bylaws do not empower the Board to grant exceptions to the CC&R’s.”

• Core Argument: The Petitioner contended that Well Agreement 2 was not merely an exception but an effective amendment of the CC&Rs.

• Supporting Rationale: Citing CC&R Section 9.3.1, which requires the “written approval or affirmative vote of 75 percent of the total owners” to amend the CC&Rs, the Petitioner argued the Board acted unilaterally and without the necessary membership approval.

• Conclusion: By entering into the agreement without a membership vote, the Board exceeded the powers granted to it by the Bylaws.

Respondent’s Position and Justification

The American Ranch Community Association presented its actions as a necessary and reasonable response to a complex situation, grounded in its interpretation of its duties and authority.

• Immediate Justification: The Board’s decision was prompted by an urgent request from the Kaplans on July 30, 2016. The pending sale of Lot 2 was at risk due to concerns over the validity of Well Agreement 1.

• Rationale for New Agreement: The Board determined that Well Agreement 1 was likely unenforceable because the Association lacked the “ability or authority to bill the owners of the lot for water used.” The Board concluded that entering into a new agreement to invalidate the first one was the “best course of action.”

• Nature of the Action: The Respondent’s defense implicitly framed Well Agreement 2 not as a permanent change to the community rules (an amendment), but as a specific, situational resolution (a variance) to a long-standing issue inherited from a previous Board.

The Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Conclusions

The ALJ’s decision provides a clear legal analysis that ultimately led to the petition’s dismissal. The ruling affirmed the Board’s authority by interpreting the Well Agreement as a variance rather than an amendment.

The decision first established that the Petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard.

The central point of the ruling was the rejection of the Petitioner’s primary argument. The Judge found the argument that the agreement constituted an amendment to be “faulty.”

• Direct Ruling on the Issue: “A variance granted to an individual owner from a restriction under the CC&Rs does not constitute an amendment of the CC&Rs.”

The ALJ outlined a clear hierarchy of power derived from the Association’s own governing documents to demonstrate that the Board acted within its purview.

1. Power to Grant Variances: CC&R Section 3.31 explicitly grants the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) the authority to grant variances from restrictions in “extenuating circumstances” if the variance does not have a “substantial adverse effect on the Owners.”

2. Delegation of Power to the Board: Bylaw Section 3.11, and specifically Section 3.11.8, grants the Board the power to “exercise for the Association all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated to the Association and not reserved to the membership.”

3. Conclusion on Authority: The ALJ connected these two provisions directly, stating: “As the power to grant variances was delegated to the Architectural Review Committee and was not reserved to the membership, the Board had the authority to grant such a variance.”

Based on this legal reasoning, the ALJ issued a definitive order.

• Final Conclusion: “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board of Directors lacked the authority to enter into Well Agreement 2. Thus, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation of Section 3.11 of the Bylaws.”

• Order: “In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed.”


Brent J Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brent J. Mathews Counsel —
Respondent American Ranch Community Association Counsel Lynn Krupnik and Timothy Krupnik

Alleged Violations

American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the Respondent Board violated the Bylaws. The Board was found to have the necessary authority under Bylaws Section 3.11 to enter into the Well Agreement 2 as a variance, and this action did not constitute an improper amendment of the CC&Rs.

Why this result: The Board was authorized to grant a variance to the CC&Rs regarding the well on Lot 2, a power delegated to the Association, meaning the Board did not exceed its authority under the Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11, when the Board entered into the 'Well Agreement' (Well Agreement 2).

Petitioner asserted that the Board violated the Bylaws by entering into Well Agreement 2, claiming the Board lacked the authority to grant exceptions or variances to the CC&Rs regarding the use of a private water well on Lot 2. The Board agreed the well existed in violation of CC&Rs Section 3.26, but argued Well Agreement 2 constituted a variance, not an amendment.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, Bylaws 3.11, CC&Rs, Variance, Amendment, Well Agreement, Burden of Proof, Dismissal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818050-REL Decision – 664186.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:00 (112.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818050-REL


Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Mathews vs. American Ranch Community Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818050-REL, a dispute between Petitioner Brent J. Mathews and the Respondent, American Ranch Community Association. The petition, filed on May 16, 2018, was ultimately dismissed by the ALJ on October 11, 2018.

The core of the dispute was the American Ranch Board of Directors’ authority to enter into a “Well Agreement” on August 9, 2016, with the owners of Lot 2. This agreement permitted the continued use of a private well for irrigation, an activity explicitly prohibited by the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Petitioner argued that this agreement constituted an unauthorized amendment to the CC&Rs, an action requiring a 75% vote of the membership, and therefore violated the Board’s powers as defined in the community’s Bylaws.

The ALJ’s decision hinged on the critical legal distinction between a “variance” and an “amendment.” The Judge concluded that the Board’s action was not an amendment but a variance granted to an individual owner. The ruling established that the community’s governing documents delegate the power to grant variances to the Architectural Review Committee. According to the Bylaws, the Board of Directors is empowered to exercise any authority delegated to the Association that is not exclusively reserved for the membership. As the power to grant variances was not reserved for the membership, the Board acted within its authority. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of the case.

Case Overview

Case Name

Brent J. Mathews vs. American Ranch Community Association

Case Number

18F-H1818050-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Petitioner

Brent J. Mathews (representing himself)

Respondent

American Ranch Community Association (represented by Lynn Krupnik and Timothy Krupnik)

Hearing Date

September 21, 2018

Decision Date

October 11, 2018

Final Ruling

The Petition is dismissed.

The Central Dispute: The Well Agreement for Lot 2

The conflict originated from a water well installed on Lot 2 of the American Ranch community around 2007. This installation was in direct violation of the CC&Rs.

• CC&R Section 3.26 (Water Wells): This section explicitly states, “The placement, drilling and operation of water wells is prohibited on all Lots except Equestrian Lots.” The use of any approved well on an Equestrian Lot is further restricted to irrigating pasture land and providing drinking water for horses.

To address the existing violation, the Association’s Board entered into two separate agreements over several years.

1. Well Agreement 1 (June 2011): The Board and the then-owners of Lot 2 entered into an agreement that allowed the continued use of the well for irrigation. A key provision required the owners to install a water meter and pay the Association a per-gallon charge equivalent to the local water district’s rate. The Board later determined it lacked the authority to bill homeowners for water from a private well, viewing this function as the responsibility of the water district, which rendered this agreement problematic.

2. Well Agreement 2 (August 9, 2016): This agreement, the subject of the legal dispute, was executed with new prospective buyers, Mark and Diane Kaplan. The Kaplans, upon discovering Well Agreement 1 during escrow, expressed concerns and stated they would be “unable to proceed with the purchase” without clarification. Under time pressure, the Board executed Well Agreement 2, which invalidated the first agreement. The new agreement permitted the well’s continued use for irrigation purposes but stipulated that “the owners would not be billed for the water used.”

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

After initially alleging multiple violations, including an “Open Meeting Violation,” Petitioner Brent J. Mathews was directed to clarify his claim to a single issue. His final argument focused on a specific alleged violation of the Association’s governing documents.

• Clarified Single Issue: The Petitioner asserted that the Board violated American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11, which outlines the Board’s powers and duties. His formal clarification stated: “When the Board entered into the ‘Well Agreement’ they may have assumed they had the power to grant exceptions to the CC&R’s. The American Ranch Community Association Bylaws do not empower the Board to grant exceptions to the CC&R’s.”

• Core Argument: The Petitioner contended that Well Agreement 2 was not merely an exception but an effective amendment of the CC&Rs.

• Supporting Rationale: Citing CC&R Section 9.3.1, which requires the “written approval or affirmative vote of 75 percent of the total owners” to amend the CC&Rs, the Petitioner argued the Board acted unilaterally and without the necessary membership approval.

• Conclusion: By entering into the agreement without a membership vote, the Board exceeded the powers granted to it by the Bylaws.

Respondent’s Position and Justification

The American Ranch Community Association presented its actions as a necessary and reasonable response to a complex situation, grounded in its interpretation of its duties and authority.

• Immediate Justification: The Board’s decision was prompted by an urgent request from the Kaplans on July 30, 2016. The pending sale of Lot 2 was at risk due to concerns over the validity of Well Agreement 1.

• Rationale for New Agreement: The Board determined that Well Agreement 1 was likely unenforceable because the Association lacked the “ability or authority to bill the owners of the lot for water used.” The Board concluded that entering into a new agreement to invalidate the first one was the “best course of action.”

• Nature of the Action: The Respondent’s defense implicitly framed Well Agreement 2 not as a permanent change to the community rules (an amendment), but as a specific, situational resolution (a variance) to a long-standing issue inherited from a previous Board.

The Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Conclusions

The ALJ’s decision provides a clear legal analysis that ultimately led to the petition’s dismissal. The ruling affirmed the Board’s authority by interpreting the Well Agreement as a variance rather than an amendment.

The decision first established that the Petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard.

The central point of the ruling was the rejection of the Petitioner’s primary argument. The Judge found the argument that the agreement constituted an amendment to be “faulty.”

• Direct Ruling on the Issue: “A variance granted to an individual owner from a restriction under the CC&Rs does not constitute an amendment of the CC&Rs.”

The ALJ outlined a clear hierarchy of power derived from the Association’s own governing documents to demonstrate that the Board acted within its purview.

1. Power to Grant Variances: CC&R Section 3.31 explicitly grants the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) the authority to grant variances from restrictions in “extenuating circumstances” if the variance does not have a “substantial adverse effect on the Owners.”

2. Delegation of Power to the Board: Bylaw Section 3.11, and specifically Section 3.11.8, grants the Board the power to “exercise for the Association all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated to the Association and not reserved to the membership.”

3. Conclusion on Authority: The ALJ connected these two provisions directly, stating: “As the power to grant variances was delegated to the Architectural Review Committee and was not reserved to the membership, the Board had the authority to grant such a variance.”

Based on this legal reasoning, the ALJ issued a definitive order.

• Final Conclusion: “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board of Directors lacked the authority to enter into Well Agreement 2. Thus, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation of Section 3.11 of the Bylaws.”

• Order: “In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed.”


Travis Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Travis Prall Counsel —
Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Pierce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs because there was no credible evidence that the disputed landscaping (tree) had been originally installed by the developer.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the landscaping was originally installed by the Declarant, which was a prerequisite for HOA maintenance responsibility under the relevant CC&R section.

Key Issues & Findings

Neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R Section 7.1.4 by failing to maintain a tree in his back yard, arguing the back yard qualified as a 'Public Yard' and the tree was originally installed by the Declarant.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance, CC&R interpretation, burden of proof, landscaping
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818053-REL Decision – 661820.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:06:14 (107.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818053-REL


Briefing: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA Dispute

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and legal rationale from a homeowners’ association dispute between Petitioner Travis Prall and Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena HOA. The case centered on whether the HOA was responsible for maintaining a tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by neglecting maintenance in what he defined as a “Public Yard.”

The dispute was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, resulting in two decisions, an initial ruling and a subsequent ruling on rehearing, both of which dismissed the Petitioner’s case. The critical takeaway is that the case was decided not on the ambiguous definition of “Public” versus “Private” yards, but on a crucial qualifying clause in the CC&Rs. Section 7.1.4 obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping only “as originally installed by Declarant.”

The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the tree in question was part of the original developer’s landscaping. Conversely, the HOA presented credible testimony from an early homeowner and board member stating that all backyards in the community were sold as “just dirt,” with no developer-installed landscaping or irrigation. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner’s arguments were based on “suppositions and inferences” and did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim.

Case Overview

This dispute was initiated by a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue was the interpretation of HOA maintenance responsibilities as defined in the community’s governing documents.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

18F-H1818053-REL

Petitioner

Travis Prall

Respondent

Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Initial Hearing

September 4, 2018

Initial Decision

September 24, 2018 (Petition Dismissed)

Rehearing

January 11, 2019

Final Decision

January 31, 2019 (Petition Dismissed)

Timeline of Key Events

• 2010: Petitioner Travis Prall purchases his home, an “interior” unit, and believes the HOA is responsible for both front and backyard maintenance.

• July 26, 2014: A storm knocks over a large tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. He pays for its removal while asserting it was the HOA’s responsibility.

• Post-2014: The tree regrows from its remaining trunk.

• 2018: The HOA observes that the regrown tree’s roots are causing a “pony wall” to buckle and hires Sun King Fencing & Gates to perform repairs. The repair company recommends removing the tree to prevent recurrence.

• May 3, 2018: The HOA issues a “Courtesy Letter” to the Petitioner, requesting he “trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”

• June 4, 2018: In response, the Petitioner files a Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the legal proceedings.

Central Allegation and Dispute

The Petitioner alleged that the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of its CC&Rs by “neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards.” His central claim was that his backyard, though enclosed, qualifies as a “Public Yard” under the CC&Rs and that the HOA was therefore responsible for the maintenance and removal of the problematic tree. The HOA’s demand that he handle the tree himself constituted, in his view, a violation of their duties.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

The case presented conflicting interpretations of the CC&Rs and opposing accounts of historical maintenance practices.

Petitioner’s Position (Travis Prall)

The Petitioner’s case was built on his interpretation of the CC&Rs and inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that his backyard is a “Public Yard” because, while enclosed by a four-foot wall (two-foot block plus two-foot aluminum fence), it is “generally visible from Neighboring Property” via a community walkway.

• Claim of Prior Maintenance: Testified that from 2010 to 2013, the HOA did provide landscaping maintenance for his backyard.

• Inferences about Original Landscaping:

◦ Posited that the large size of the tree in 2010 indicated it must have been planted by the original developer around 2000.

◦ Argued that the similar design of irrigation systems across the community suggested they were all installed during original construction, including those in backyards.

◦ Noted that the sprinkler system in his backyard wrapped around the tree, further suggesting they were installed together by the developer.

Respondent’s Position (Villas at Tierra Buena HOA)

The Respondent’s defense relied on its own interpretation of the CC&Rs, consistent historical practice, and direct testimony regarding the community’s development.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that an “enclosed” yard is, by definition, a “Private Yard,” making the homeowner responsible for its maintenance.

• Denial of Prior Maintenance: Stated unequivocally that it had never provided landscaping services for any resident’s backyard. Its responsibility is limited to front yards and common areas.

• Practical and Liability Concerns: Argued that it has no access to control backyard irrigation systems and that its workers entering enclosed yards would create liability issues, such as pets escaping.

• Crucial Rehearing Testimony: Presented testimony from Maureen Karpinski, the HOA Board President.

◦ Ms. Karpinski, a real estate agent, purchased her home from the developer in 2002 and was involved with the community during its construction phase.

◦ She testified with certainty that her backyard was “just dirt” with no landscaping or irrigation when she purchased it.

◦ She stated that, to the best of her knowledge, “none of the homes in Respondent’s community were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the back yards and were just dirt.”

Interpretation of Governing CC&R Sections

The dispute revolved around the specific language in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

Section

Provision

Significance in the Case

The HOA must “Replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots…“

This became the dispositive clause. The Petitioner’s entire claim depended on proving the tree was “originally installed by Declarant.”

“Private Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is enclosed or shielded from view… so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property. “Public Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is generally visible from Neighboring Property…

This created a central point of interpretive conflict. The Petitioner argued the clause meant “enclosed and not visible,” while the HOA argued it meant “enclosed or shielded.” The Judge ultimately did not rule on this ambiguity.

“Visible from Neighboring Property” means… visible to a person six feet tall standing on any part of such neighboring property…

This definition supported the Petitioner’s claim that his backyard was, in fact, “visible” from the common area walkway.

Administrative Law Judge’s Rulings and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the Petitioner’s case in both the initial hearing and the rehearing, focusing on the burden of proof related to a single, critical phrase in the CC&Rs.

Initial Decision (September 24, 2018)

• Avoidance of Ambiguity: The ALJ acknowledged the potential merit of the Petitioner’s interpretation of “Public Yard,” stating “the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards of the interior homes.” However, the ALJ concluded the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue in this matter.”

• Focus on “Originally Installed by Declarant”: The decision hinged entirely on Section 7.1.4. The ALJ found that the “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that the tree at issue was originally installed by the Declarant.”

• Lack of Proof: The ALJ noted that the tree’s rapid regrowth from 2013 to 2018 made it impossible to conclude that the original tree must have been planted by the developer in 2000.

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof, and the petition was dismissed.

Rehearing Decision (January 31, 2019)

• Rejection of Petitioner’s Inferences: The ALJ characterized the Petitioner’s evidence regarding the tree’s age and the irrigation system as “suppositions and inferences.”

• Credibility of Respondent’s Testimony: In contrast, the ALJ found the testimony of HOA President Maureen Karpinski to be “the only credible evidence offered regarding the landscaping of the homes.”

• Definitive Factual Finding: Based on Ms. Karpinski’s testimony, the ALJ concluded there was “no evidence there was any landscaping or improvements originally installed by Declarant.”

• Final Conclusion: As the precondition of Section 7.1.4 (that landscaping be “originally installed by Declarant”) was not met, the HOA had no maintenance duty for the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner again failed to establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and the petition was dismissed with finality.


Travis Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Travis Prall Counsel —
Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Pierce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs because there was no credible evidence that the disputed landscaping (tree) had been originally installed by the developer.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the landscaping was originally installed by the Declarant, which was a prerequisite for HOA maintenance responsibility under the relevant CC&R section.

Key Issues & Findings

Neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R Section 7.1.4 by failing to maintain a tree in his back yard, arguing the back yard qualified as a 'Public Yard' and the tree was originally installed by the Declarant.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance, CC&R interpretation, burden of proof, landscaping
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818053-REL Decision – 661820.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:06 (107.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818053-REL


Briefing: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA Dispute

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and legal rationale from a homeowners’ association dispute between Petitioner Travis Prall and Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena HOA. The case centered on whether the HOA was responsible for maintaining a tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by neglecting maintenance in what he defined as a “Public Yard.”

The dispute was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, resulting in two decisions, an initial ruling and a subsequent ruling on rehearing, both of which dismissed the Petitioner’s case. The critical takeaway is that the case was decided not on the ambiguous definition of “Public” versus “Private” yards, but on a crucial qualifying clause in the CC&Rs. Section 7.1.4 obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping only “as originally installed by Declarant.”

The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the tree in question was part of the original developer’s landscaping. Conversely, the HOA presented credible testimony from an early homeowner and board member stating that all backyards in the community were sold as “just dirt,” with no developer-installed landscaping or irrigation. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner’s arguments were based on “suppositions and inferences” and did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim.

Case Overview

This dispute was initiated by a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue was the interpretation of HOA maintenance responsibilities as defined in the community’s governing documents.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

18F-H1818053-REL

Petitioner

Travis Prall

Respondent

Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Initial Hearing

September 4, 2018

Initial Decision

September 24, 2018 (Petition Dismissed)

Rehearing

January 11, 2019

Final Decision

January 31, 2019 (Petition Dismissed)

Timeline of Key Events

• 2010: Petitioner Travis Prall purchases his home, an “interior” unit, and believes the HOA is responsible for both front and backyard maintenance.

• July 26, 2014: A storm knocks over a large tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. He pays for its removal while asserting it was the HOA’s responsibility.

• Post-2014: The tree regrows from its remaining trunk.

• 2018: The HOA observes that the regrown tree’s roots are causing a “pony wall” to buckle and hires Sun King Fencing & Gates to perform repairs. The repair company recommends removing the tree to prevent recurrence.

• May 3, 2018: The HOA issues a “Courtesy Letter” to the Petitioner, requesting he “trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”

• June 4, 2018: In response, the Petitioner files a Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the legal proceedings.

Central Allegation and Dispute

The Petitioner alleged that the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of its CC&Rs by “neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards.” His central claim was that his backyard, though enclosed, qualifies as a “Public Yard” under the CC&Rs and that the HOA was therefore responsible for the maintenance and removal of the problematic tree. The HOA’s demand that he handle the tree himself constituted, in his view, a violation of their duties.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

The case presented conflicting interpretations of the CC&Rs and opposing accounts of historical maintenance practices.

Petitioner’s Position (Travis Prall)

The Petitioner’s case was built on his interpretation of the CC&Rs and inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that his backyard is a “Public Yard” because, while enclosed by a four-foot wall (two-foot block plus two-foot aluminum fence), it is “generally visible from Neighboring Property” via a community walkway.

• Claim of Prior Maintenance: Testified that from 2010 to 2013, the HOA did provide landscaping maintenance for his backyard.

• Inferences about Original Landscaping:

◦ Posited that the large size of the tree in 2010 indicated it must have been planted by the original developer around 2000.

◦ Argued that the similar design of irrigation systems across the community suggested they were all installed during original construction, including those in backyards.

◦ Noted that the sprinkler system in his backyard wrapped around the tree, further suggesting they were installed together by the developer.

Respondent’s Position (Villas at Tierra Buena HOA)

The Respondent’s defense relied on its own interpretation of the CC&Rs, consistent historical practice, and direct testimony regarding the community’s development.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that an “enclosed” yard is, by definition, a “Private Yard,” making the homeowner responsible for its maintenance.

• Denial of Prior Maintenance: Stated unequivocally that it had never provided landscaping services for any resident’s backyard. Its responsibility is limited to front yards and common areas.

• Practical and Liability Concerns: Argued that it has no access to control backyard irrigation systems and that its workers entering enclosed yards would create liability issues, such as pets escaping.

• Crucial Rehearing Testimony: Presented testimony from Maureen Karpinski, the HOA Board President.

◦ Ms. Karpinski, a real estate agent, purchased her home from the developer in 2002 and was involved with the community during its construction phase.

◦ She testified with certainty that her backyard was “just dirt” with no landscaping or irrigation when she purchased it.

◦ She stated that, to the best of her knowledge, “none of the homes in Respondent’s community were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the back yards and were just dirt.”

Interpretation of Governing CC&R Sections

The dispute revolved around the specific language in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

Section

Provision

Significance in the Case

The HOA must “Replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots…“

This became the dispositive clause. The Petitioner’s entire claim depended on proving the tree was “originally installed by Declarant.”

“Private Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is enclosed or shielded from view… so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property. “Public Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is generally visible from Neighboring Property…

This created a central point of interpretive conflict. The Petitioner argued the clause meant “enclosed and not visible,” while the HOA argued it meant “enclosed or shielded.” The Judge ultimately did not rule on this ambiguity.

“Visible from Neighboring Property” means… visible to a person six feet tall standing on any part of such neighboring property…

This definition supported the Petitioner’s claim that his backyard was, in fact, “visible” from the common area walkway.

Administrative Law Judge’s Rulings and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the Petitioner’s case in both the initial hearing and the rehearing, focusing on the burden of proof related to a single, critical phrase in the CC&Rs.

Initial Decision (September 24, 2018)

• Avoidance of Ambiguity: The ALJ acknowledged the potential merit of the Petitioner’s interpretation of “Public Yard,” stating “the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards of the interior homes.” However, the ALJ concluded the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue in this matter.”

• Focus on “Originally Installed by Declarant”: The decision hinged entirely on Section 7.1.4. The ALJ found that the “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that the tree at issue was originally installed by the Declarant.”

• Lack of Proof: The ALJ noted that the tree’s rapid regrowth from 2013 to 2018 made it impossible to conclude that the original tree must have been planted by the developer in 2000.

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof, and the petition was dismissed.

Rehearing Decision (January 31, 2019)

• Rejection of Petitioner’s Inferences: The ALJ characterized the Petitioner’s evidence regarding the tree’s age and the irrigation system as “suppositions and inferences.”

• Credibility of Respondent’s Testimony: In contrast, the ALJ found the testimony of HOA President Maureen Karpinski to be “the only credible evidence offered regarding the landscaping of the homes.”

• Definitive Factual Finding: Based on Ms. Karpinski’s testimony, the ALJ concluded there was “no evidence there was any landscaping or improvements originally installed by Declarant.”

• Final Conclusion: As the precondition of Section 7.1.4 (that landscaping be “originally installed by Declarant”) was not met, the HOA had no maintenance duty for the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner again failed to establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and the petition was dismissed with finality.


Annette Cohen vs. CBS 136 Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-06-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Annette Cohen Counsel —
Respondent CBS 136 Homeowners Association Counsel Brian E. Ditsch

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party because Respondent established a technical violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide requested documents within the 10-day limit. However, the Administrative Law Judge found a civil penalty was not appropriate given the circumstances.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide requested association records within 10 business days

Petitioner requested sign-in sheets for the January 10, 2018, and February 15, 2018, CBS HOA meetings. Respondent acknowledged a technical violation of the statute by failing to provide the requested documents within the required 10-day timeframe, although they were ultimately provided prior to the hearing.

Orders: Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future, and pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records request, failure to provide documents, condominium owners association, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818033-REL Decision – 642888.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:05:13 (74.5 KB)

18F-H1818033-REL Decision – 655537.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:05:13 (83.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818033-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision from the administrative hearing case Annette Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association (No. 18F-H1818033-REL). The core of the dispute was the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) failure to provide requested documents—specifically, meeting sign-in sheets—to a member, Annette Cohen, within the ten-business-day timeframe mandated by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1258.

At the hearing, the Respondent HOA acknowledged this “technical violation,” attributing the delay to operational difficulties arising from a recent change in management companies. The Petitioner, Ms. Cohen, argued the delay was intentional and warranted a civil penalty.

The Administrative Law Judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, found that the HOA did violate the statute. In the final order, the Judge declared Ms. Cohen the prevailing party and mandated future compliance by the HOA. While a civil penalty was deemed inappropriate under the circumstances, the Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse Ms. Cohen’s $500 filing fee.

Case Overview

Entity / Individual

Petitioner

Annette Cohen

Respondent

CBS 136 Homeowners Association (CBS)

Respondent’s Counsel

Brian Ditsch, Sacks Tierney P.A.

Respondent’s Mgmt. Co.

Key Witness

Susan Rubin (PRM)

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Case Number

18F-H1818033-REL

Hearing Date

June 6, 2018

Decision Date

June 26, 2018

Chronology of the Dispute

The dispute centered on two separate sets of document requests made by Petitioner Annette Cohen.

• Request 1 (January 10 Meeting):

◦ On or about Jan. 10, 2018: Ms. Cohen requested the sign-in sheets from the annual meeting held on this date.

◦ Jan. 2018: The management company PRM took over management of the CBS 136 HOA.

◦ Feb. 15, 2018: After more than a month, and after two scheduled review appointments were cancelled by the management company, the sign-in sheets were finally provided to Ms. Cohen by email.

• Request 2 (February 15 Meeting):

◦ Feb. 19, 2018: Ms. Cohen requested the sign-in sheets from the February 15, 2018 HOA meeting. Receipt of this request was acknowledged by PRM.

◦ Feb. 21, 26, 27 & March 5, 2018: Ms. Cohen made repeated follow-up requests for the same information.

• Formal Proceedings:

◦ March 9, 2018: Ms. Cohen filed a formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

◦ April 10, 2018: The Respondent HOA filed an answer denying all allegations.

◦ June 6, 2018: An administrative hearing was held. The documents had been provided to Ms. Cohen at some point prior to this hearing.

◦ June 26, 2018: The Administrative Law Judge issued the final decision.

Core Allegation and Legal Framework

Petitioner’s Allegation

Annette Cohen alleged that the CBS 136 Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258 by failing to provide association records for review and copying within the statutorily required timeframe.

Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

The legal basis for the petition is Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1258(A), which governs a member’s right to access association records. The statute states, in relevant part:

“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member… The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records. An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”

The petitioner bears the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence that “shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Arguments and Evidence Presented at Hearing

Once the Respondent acknowledged the delay, the hearing focused solely on determining the appropriate remedy.

Petitioner’s Position (Annette Cohen)

• Intentional Negligence: Ms. Cohen argued that the Respondent “intentionally ignored her request for the documents.”

• Request for Penalty: Based on the belief of intentional neglect, she asserted that a civil penalty was an appropriate remedy.

• Unreasonable Delay: She noted that the documents “could have easily been emailed to her within the 10 day deadline,” but that the HOA’s management company did not present this as an option until after the deadline had already passed.

Respondent’s Position (CBS 136 HOA)

• Acknowledged Violation: At the June 6, 2018 hearing, the Respondent “acknowledged that the requested documents were not provided within the 10 day timeframe set forth in statute.”

• Mitigating Circumstances: The defense centered on testimony from Susan Rubin of the management company, PRM. Ms. Rubin testified to the following:

◦ No requests are “ever purposefully ignored.”

◦ PRM had only taken over management of the HOA in January 2018.

◦ At the time of the requests, PRM was “still getting documents from the former management company.”

◦ The delay was not due to ignoring the request, but because it “took a little longer than expected to provide the documents.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

Findings and Conclusions

• Violation Established: The Judge concluded there was “no dispute that Respondent failed to provide the requested documents within 10 days.” Therefore, the Petitioner “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

• Rejection of Civil Penalty: Despite the Petitioner’s argument, the Administrative Law Judge did “not find such a penalty to be appropriate given the circumstances in this matter.”

Final Order

The Judge issued a three-part order binding on the parties:

1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Annette Cohen, is “deemed the prevailing party.”

2. Future Compliance: The Respondent, CBS 136 Homeowners Association, is ordered to “comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future.”

3. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 directly to her within thirty (30) days of the order.