Tag Archives: ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-13
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nicholas Thomas Counsel —
Respondent Tanglewood Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement, Pages 33-34, Clause Four, subsection a., b., and f.

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the two-issue Petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Tanglewood Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or Management Agreement. The HOA was declared the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Regarding the plumbing maintenance (Issue #1), the HOA demonstrated they took action but were legally constrained by contract limitations requiring Board approval/owner vote for costly repairs ($5,000 threshold). Regarding the failure to hire a property manager (Issue #2), the governing documents were vague, and the violation was not proven.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain Association standards of acceptable living standards and make proper repairs to plumbing in the properties.

Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging HOA failed to timely fix a major plumbing issue (Issue #1) that caused flooding/sink backup, making his unit uninhabitable and resulting in lost rent. The second issue (Issue #2) alleged the HOA failed to hire a property management company, which Petitioner claimed led to the untimely handling of Issue #1. The HOA responded that repairs were delayed due to financial constraints requiring a successful special assessment vote.

Orders: The Petition was denied, and the HOA was determined to be the prevailing party. Petitioner was ordered to bear his filing fees. OAH cannot award damages, such as lost rent reimbursement.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Page 2, Section A
  • Management Agreement, Pages 33-34, Clause Four, subsection a., b., and f.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Plumbing, CC&R, Self-Managed, Special Assessment, Filing Fee, Damages Denied
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Decision Documents

25F-H037-REL Decision – 1300705.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:18 (49.8 KB)

25F-H037-REL Decision – 1327762.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:18 (147.6 KB)

John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust vs Tonto Forest

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-06-08
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R 5.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s single-issue petition because the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the Architectural Committee (ARC) to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was awarded.

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural Committee Composition Requirement

Petitioner alleged violation of CC&R Article 5.3, which mandates the Architectural Committee (ARC) shall consist of three regular members, because the HOA only had two members on the ARC as of the petition date (February 5, 2025). The Tribunal found the HOA failed to appoint a third member to the ARC until March 17, 2025, granting the petition.

Orders: Petition granted; Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was awarded.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R 5.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Committee, ARC, CC&R Violation, Board Appointment, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Civil Penalty Denied
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R 5.3

Decision Documents

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1294268.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:14 (45.3 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1295556.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:15 (40.0 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1314961.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:15 (144.4 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1323845.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:15 (44.0 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1323922.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:15 (7.7 KB)

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel, Rick Jr. &

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom
Respondent Rick Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article V, Section 5.22; Guidelines Section 2.24

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the HOA's petition, finding the HOA failed to meet its burden of proving a violation. The homeowner justifiably relied on the ARC's approval, which was granted rapidly and without clarification requests, despite the lack of detail on the wall height, effectively granting an exception to the Guidelines.

Why this result: The HOA (Petitioner) failed to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the plans after multiple rounds of review, and the homeowner relied on that approval. The delay in the stop construction notice was also deemed unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Construction of unapproved structures/patio walls in excess of permitted height

Petitioner (HOA) alleged Respondent (homeowner) violated community documents by constructing walls around a courtyard in excess of the 42-inch height limit set by the Guidelines Section 2.24, and without sufficient prior approval (CC&R Section 5.22). The constructed wall was approximately 8 feet high.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Review, Wall Height, Pony Wall, Approval Reliance, Burden of Proof, Unreasonable Delay
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article V, Section 5.22
  • Guidelines Section 2.24

Decision Documents

24F-H050-REL Decision – 1222437.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:24 (132.2 KB)

Taylor Kidd vs Heritage Village III Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-23
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer Counsel Patrick T. Nackley
Respondent Heritage Village III Homeowners Association Counsel Tessa Knueppel and Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4 and Heritage Village III HO CC&R Article VII, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Association violated its own CC&Rs (Article VII, Section 1) by failing to incorporate and follow Article III, Section 4 of the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs, which required a two-thirds vote of voting owners for a special assessment for capital improvements. Both petitions were granted, and the Association was ordered to refund the total filing fees of $1,000.00.

Why this result: Respondent failed to take the required vote regarding the special assessment for the Landscape Improvement Project, in violation of the controlling CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs by approving a Landscape Improvement Project and potential special assessment for a capital improvement without the required 2/3 membership vote.

The Association violated its CC&Rs by failing to follow the McCormick Ranch CC&R provision requiring the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by Voting Owners for a Special Assessment intended for construction, reconstruction, repair, or replacement of a capital improvement (the Landscape Improvement Project).

Orders: The petitions were granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse both Petitioners' filing fees pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4
  • Association CC&R Article VII, Section 1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Special Assessment, Capital Improvement, Membership Vote, CC&R Violation, Consolidation, Master Association
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.7
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

Decision Documents

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182719.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (62.8 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182767.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (13.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182769.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (50.0 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1203525.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (49.3 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1215299.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (123.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1226570.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (39.7 KB)

Deborah Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deborah Masear Counsel —
Respondent Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association Counsel Erica L. Mortenson

Alleged Violations

Park By-Laws Article III, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA (Park) was in compliance with its By-Laws. Frank Maiz was found to be the spouse of the unit owner (Mercedes B.B. Maiz), making him eligible to serve on the Board of Directors.

Why this result: Petitioner was mistaken regarding the current ownership of the unit at issue and failed to prove the respondent violated the Park By-Laws.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors Qualification (Owner/Spouse Requirement)

Petitioner alleged that Frank Maiz was ineligible for the Board because his wife, Mercedes B.B. Maiz, was not the true owner of the unit, arguing that their daughter (also Mercedes B.B. Maiz) was the owner based on a recorded Beneficiary Deed. The Respondent proved that the wife owned the property, making Frank Maiz eligible as her spouse.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Park is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner shall bear her filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Decision Documents

24F-H041-REL Decision – 1178740.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:00 (54.4 KB)

24F-H041-REL Decision – 1202883.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:00 (42.7 KB)

24F-H041-REL Decision – 1211324.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:00 (120.7 KB)

VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association v. Duane S & Mary L Eitel

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H003-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-02-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association Counsel Anthony Rossetti, Esq.
Respondent Duane Eitel & Mary Eitel Counsel Kevin Harper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article VII, sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, 7.29, and 7.31

Outcome Summary

Petitioner sustained its burden of proof establishing that Respondents violated CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 by operating a cat rescue business (VKNR) from their residence, which involved unauthorized commercial activity, excessive non-pet animals, and creating a nuisance. Violation of 7.29 was not established. The petition was granted.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized business out of their home and housing dozens of cats in excess of a reasonable number of household pets, creating a nuisance.

Respondents operated a nonprofit cat rescue (VKNR) from their single-family residence, housing 50+ cats in a 3-car garage, which constituted an unauthorized commercial use, exceeded a reasonable number of pets, and created traffic and waste nuisances.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs section 7.2
  • CC&Rs section 7.3
  • CC&Rs section 7.25
  • CC&Rs section 7.26
  • CC&Rs section 7.28
  • CC&Rs section 7.31

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Home Business, Pets/Animals, Nuisance, CC&Rs, Enforcement, HOA
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Decision Documents

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1094853.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:37 (51.0 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1113338.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:37 (49.4 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1125372.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:37 (65.5 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1147484.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:38 (184.8 KB)

Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H015-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb Counsel Jeffrey Brie, Esq.
Respondent Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association Counsel Phillip Brown, Esq. and Kelly Oetinger, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Petitioner met the burden of proof for both alleged violations: violation of the Declaration (not enforcing the 25ft setback) and violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (failing to provide documents). The petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide documents

Respondent failed to produce documents requested by Petitioner, specifically meeting minutes discussing the investigative report, within the statutory timeframe, violating A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Orders: Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 and Declaration Section F. Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Declaration Section F

Analytics Highlights

Topics: setback enforcement, document request, HOA governance, filing fee refund, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • Declaration Section F

Decision Documents

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1102948.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:05 (53.9 KB)

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1116083.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:05 (50.5 KB)

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1129495.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:06 (148.2 KB)

Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H066-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sebastien Verstraet Counsel —
Respondent Monterey Ridge Condominium Association Counsel Marcus R. Martinez

Alleged Violations

Section 4.24, Declaration/Rules

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its documents. The Declaration and Rules unambiguously prohibited hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in the Petitioner's third-floor unit, and the Petitioner admitted installing the flooring without seeking approval.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Petitioner received the governing documents prior to closing, failed to fully read them, and failed to seek permission from the Association prior to installing the prohibited Luxury Vinyl Plank flooring.

Key Issues & Findings

Flooring Restriction for New Units

Petitioner challenged the Association's enforcement of a declaration rule prohibiting hard floor coverings (like LVP) in his third-floor unit, arguing his chosen flooring had sufficient soundproofing. The Association argued the rule was clear, unambiguous, and mandatory for enforcement.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flooring Restriction, Luxury Vinyl Plank (LVP), CCNR Enforcement, Third Floor Unit, Prior Approval
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Decision Documents

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1085177.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:29 (48.3 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1112087.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:30 (110.4 KB)

Thomas P Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-09
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

Section 2.1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 by adopting the Residential Parking Policy. The Policy was deemed a valid clarification authorized by existing CC&R provisions (4.2(t) and 5.3).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the governing documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs Section 2.1 regarding adoption of Residential Parking Policy

Petitioner alleged that the Association's adoption of the Residential Parking Policy violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 because the policy used the unauthorized term 'Rules and Regulations' rather than 'restrictions,' thereby attempting to amend the CC&Rs without following the proper process, particularly concerning the use of government-owned property.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Parking Policy, Rules vs Restrictions, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Decision Documents

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1101544.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:54 (47.0 KB)

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1111460.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:54 (102.6 KB)

Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H001-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kristeen L. Herron Counsel —
Respondent The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 4.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&Rs Article 4.4. Petitioner's preference for warmer water did not establish discrimination or a rule violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent) is in violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 for “turning off the lap pool heater … [f]or approximately one month” which Petitioner further alleges constitutes discrimination against senior residents.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by turning off the lap pool heater around mid-April 2023, making the temperature too cold for her use and constituting discrimination against senior residents who rely on the pool for exercise. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove a violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 or age-based discrimination.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article 4.4
  • The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7(e)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Pool Heating, Discrimination Claim, Common Area Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-106
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 4.4
  • CC&Rs 8.2(c)(12)
  • The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Decision Documents

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1089588.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:33 (52.0 KB)

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1102316.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:33 (136.7 KB)