Tag Archives: A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16

Terry Marvin & Lori J Lefferts v. The Stone Canyon Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts Counsel —
Respondent The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 11.3; Guidelines § 1, Items 1 & 32; Guidelines § 5, Item 12

Outcome Summary

The Petition alleging that the Stone Canyon Community Association violated its Design Guidelines by granting a variance for secondary improvements within the side-yard setback to Lot 19 owners was dismissed. The ALJ found that the DRC exercised reasonable discretion in granting a deviation (variance) under Guidelines Section 5, Item 12, and the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof.

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Design Review Committee acted reasonably within its authority to grant a deviation (variance) to the Guidelines to allow the proposed secondary improvements (grading, driveway, enclosure) within the 15’ side-yard setback in extenuating circumstances, consistent with the requirements outlined in Guideline Section 5, Item 12.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by DRC when granting a variance for side-yard setback requirements for secondary improvements.

Petitioners (Lot 20 owners) alleged the DRC violated guidelines by granting a variance to Lot 19 owners for placing secondary improvements (driveway, grading, site walls, enclosure) within the 15-foot side-yard setback. Petitioners sought rescission of the variance, arguing the DRC failed to establish an unreasonable hardship or burden as required by Guideline Section 5, Item 12, thereby acting unreasonably and causing diminution in Lot 20 value.

Orders: Petitioners' Petition is dismissed. Petitioners bear their $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 1
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
  • Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Design Review Committee, variance, setback, secondary improvements, reasonable discretion
Additional Citations:

  • CC&R Section 11.3
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 1
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
  • Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 940674.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:35 (56.7 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 953784.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:35 (64.2 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 954492.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:35 (46.5 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 958478.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:36 (48.5 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 958503.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:36 (7.4 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 990387.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:36 (167.8 KB)

John D Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-12-17
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John D Klemmer Counsel —
Respondent Caribbean Gardens Association Counsel Nicole D. Payne, Esq., Lydia A. Pierce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5 and 1.8; Article 3, Section 3.4; Article 4, Section 4.1; Article 8, Section 8.1; and, Article 12, Section 12.4

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent Association violated the cited CC&R provisions by refusing to manage the disputed area, which the ALJ determined was a limited common element.

Why this result: The Petitioner lost because the area in dispute was determined to be a 'limited common element' (a balcony serving Unit 207) under Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)), not a 'common area' the Association was required to manage under the referenced CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to manage, operate, maintain and administer common area

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated multiple CC&Rs by refusing to maintain an area between Unit 206 and Unit 207, which he claimed was a common area. The HOA argued the area was a limited common element. The ALJ concluded, relying on A.R.S. § 33-1212(A), that the disputed area was a limited common element (a balcony) allocated exclusively to Unit 207, thus Petitioner failed to establish a CC&R violation.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Petitioner bears his $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.5
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.6
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, common elements, limited common elements, balcony dispute, CC&R violation, A.R.S. 33-1212
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212
  • A.R.S. § 33-1218
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5, 1.8
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120009-REL Decision – 843358.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:04 (129.8 KB)

John D Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-12-17
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John D Klemmer Counsel —
Respondent Caribbean Gardens Association Counsel Nicole D. Payne, Esq., Lydia A. Pierce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5 and 1.8; Article 3, Section 3.4; Article 4, Section 4.1; Article 8, Section 8.1; and, Article 12, Section 12.4

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent Association violated the cited CC&R provisions by refusing to manage the disputed area, which the ALJ determined was a limited common element.

Why this result: The Petitioner lost because the area in dispute was determined to be a 'limited common element' (a balcony serving Unit 207) under Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)), not a 'common area' the Association was required to manage under the referenced CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to manage, operate, maintain and administer common area

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated multiple CC&Rs by refusing to maintain an area between Unit 206 and Unit 207, which he claimed was a common area. The HOA argued the area was a limited common element. The ALJ concluded, relying on A.R.S. § 33-1212(A), that the disputed area was a limited common element (a balcony) allocated exclusively to Unit 207, thus Petitioner failed to establish a CC&R violation.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Petitioner bears his $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(A)
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.5
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Section 1.6
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, common elements, limited common elements, balcony dispute, CC&R violation, A.R.S. 33-1212
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212
  • A.R.S. § 33-1218
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 1, Sections 1.5, 1.8
  • CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.4
  • CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1
  • CC&Rs Article 8, Section 8.1
  • CC&Rs Article 12, Section 12.4

Anthony & Karen Negrete v. Sundance Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120012-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-12-13
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony & Karen Negrete Counsel —
Respondent Sundance Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Quinten Cupps, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 33-1817(B)(2)(b)

Outcome Summary

The Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted because the statute cited by Petitioners (A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b)) regarding mandatory design approval meetings applies only to the construction or rebuild of the 'main residential structure,' not to a shed.

Why this result: The key statute relied upon by Petitioners was deemed inapplicable to the construction of a shed.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide opportunity to participate in design approval meeting for replacement shed

Petitioners alleged they were not given the opportunity to participate in a final design approval meeting for building a replacement shed on their property, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b).

Orders: Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and Petitioners’ Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Design Review, Shed, Architectural Approval, Motion to Dismiss, Statutory Interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b)
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120012-REL Decision – 842597.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:11 (131.7 KB)