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

Richard J. Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121038-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-15
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard J Jones Counsel —
Respondent Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association Counsel Troy Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines; CC&Rs Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Richard J. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof to show the Association violated its Design Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement. Evidence indicated that the Petitioner was in violation of the existing Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for his driveway extension and failing to meet the required setback.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Design Guidelines regarding setback requirements for driveway extensions and engaged in selective enforcement.

Petitioner filed a single issue petition asserting that Design Guidelines did not require a twelve-inch setback for driveway extensions from the property line and that the Association was selectively enforcing its rules. The Petitioner had installed a concrete driveway extension without obtaining prior ARC approval, and approval was denied due to the lack of the twelve-inch setback.

Orders: Richard J. Jones’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Driveway Extension, Architectural Review Committee, Setback Requirements, Design Guidelines, Selective Enforcement, HOA Violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924982.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:49 (100.9 KB)

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924983.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:50 (94.9 KB)

Rodney F Kirby v. Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rodney & Patricia Kirby Counsel —
Respondent Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier and Kaylee Ivy

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article IV, Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioners' petition, finding that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article IV section 4.1.1 by failing its duty to maintain common area landscaping (sissoo trees) in a state that did not cause damage or undue financial/health burden to the Petitioners' property. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) are in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 for failing to remove two (2) trees on community property, at the rear of Petitioners’ retaining wall, which have caused damage to Petitioners’ pool and patio slab.

Petitioners filed a single-issue petition alleging the Association violated CC&Rs Article IV sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 by refusing to remove two sissoo trees located on community property behind Petitioners’ residence, which caused debris, clogged pool pump, and caused complications with their retaining wall and back patio. The ALJ concluded the Association violated Article IV section 4.1.1 because the trees' condition caused damage and financial/health burden to Petitioners.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is granted. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. The Respondent is ordered to abide by the specified section of the planned community (Article IV section 4.1.1). No civil penalty shall be imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

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. 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 maintenance duty, CC&R violation, sissoo trees, filing fee refund, common area landscaping, pool damage
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(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 916848.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:11 (118.5 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 917026.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:12 (124.9 KB)

Rodney Kirby v. Dove Cove Estate HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rodney & Patricia Kirby Counsel —
Respondent Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier and Kaylee Ivy

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article IV, Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioners' petition, finding that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article IV section 4.1.1 by failing its duty to maintain common area landscaping (sissoo trees) in a state that did not cause damage or undue financial/health burden to the Petitioners' property. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) are in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 for failing to remove two (2) trees on community property, at the rear of Petitioners’ retaining wall, which have caused damage to Petitioners’ pool and patio slab.

Petitioners filed a single-issue petition alleging the Association violated CC&Rs Article IV sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 by refusing to remove two sissoo trees located on community property behind Petitioners’ residence, which caused debris, clogged pool pump, and caused complications with their retaining wall and back patio. The ALJ concluded the Association violated Article IV section 4.1.1 because the trees' condition caused damage and financial/health burden to Petitioners.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is granted. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. The Respondent is ordered to abide by the specified section of the planned community (Article IV section 4.1.1). No civil penalty shall be imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

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. 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 maintenance duty, CC&R violation, sissoo trees, filing fee refund, common area landscaping, pool damage
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(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Arthur Fisenko & Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko v. Bellvue Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121046-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arthur Fisenko & Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko Counsel Laurence Stevens, Esq.
Respondent Bellvue Homeowners Association Counsel Jamie B. Palfai, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) and CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition, finding that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Association violated state statute or community documents. The Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) refusal to approve the wall modification request was deemed reasonable because Petitioners failed to provide the supplemental information requested by the ARC.

Why this result: The record did not establish violation(s) of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2 by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners did not provide sufficient and/or requisite information necessary for the ARC to make a reasonably objective determination, nor did they attempt to cure the deficient application.

Key Issues & Findings

Arbitrary and capricious denial of architectural request to move garage-side yard block wall and install a double-wide gate.

Petitioners alleged the Association (ARC) arbitrarily and capriciously rejected their request to move their garage-side yard wall eight (8) feet forward on their property, using the same materials as the existing wall, except replacing the single-wide gate with a double-wide gate previously approved by Respondent.

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Request, Block Wall, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), A.R.S. 33-1817
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2
  • 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. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121046-REL Decision – 912007.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:04 (138.0 KB)

Ronald Borruso v. Sunland Village East Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ronald Borruso Counsel —
Respondent Sunland Village East Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq. and Nikolas Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Ronald Borruso, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) regarding the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 concerning meeting procedures and unauthorized board actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to carry the burden of proof to show that the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 occurred.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations regarding member speaking rights at May 27, 2021 meeting and unauthorized board meetings concerning Operations Manager job qualifications

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by restricting member speaking rights during deliberations at a special meeting on May 27, 2021, and by holding improperly noticed meetings to approve job qualifications for an Operations Manager.

Orders: Ronald Borruso’s petition is dismissed.

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

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meetings, Right to Speak, Statute Violation, Burden of Proof, Dismissal, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121062-REL Decision – 912276.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:37 (114.4 KB)

Nancy Bender v. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-23
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy Bender Counsel —
Respondent Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc. Counsel Jason Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Community Bylaws 3.03

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof that the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03, as the issue regarding a special meeting was found to be unripe. Other alleged statutory violations were inapplicable.

Why this result: Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on the Bylaws violation because the condition precedent (requesting or holding a special meeting) had not occurred, rendering the issue unripe. The statutory violations cited were inapplicable to the Association.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc. violated Community Bylaws 3.03 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B), and 33-1261(D).

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03 when it drafted and posted a letter directed to Petitioner on its online platform, in response to private correspondence (a draft special meeting request) that had not yet been submitted to the Board, which Petitioner perceived as an attempt to dismantle a platform for discussion and retaliate against her.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Community Bylaws 3.03
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Planned Community, Bylaws Violation, Jurisdiction, Unripe Issue, Special Meeting, Filing Fee Paid
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)
  • 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. § 33-1243
  • 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
  • Community Bylaws 3.03

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121048-REL Decision – 906190.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:08 (117.4 KB)

Michael E Palacios v. El Rio Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome false
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael E Palacios Counsel —
Respondent El Rio Community Association Counsel Quinten T. Cupps

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805; Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the El Rio Community Association violated statutory or community document requirements regarding access to records.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to fulfill a records request

Petitioner, a member and Board Director, requested to inspect Association books and records on March 30, 2021. Petitioner alleged the Association failed to completely fulfill the request. The ALJ determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate a violation of the governing statute or bylaws.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Bylaws, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Association Bylaws Article 11.3
  • 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
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121053-REL Decision – 904187.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:22 (114.1 KB)

Clifford (Norm) Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John Crotty

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petitioner's complaint, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) because the action was taken without a meeting via unanimous written consent as authorized by A.R.S. § 10-3821.

Why this result: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred, as the board acted without holding a formal meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of open meeting law by taking action via unanimous written consent

Petitioner alleged that the Board of Directors violated the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) on May 3, 2020, by taking two actions using unanimous written consent of the Board members, which the Respondent claimed was permissible under A.R.S. § 10-3821 as action without a meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meeting Law, Unanimous Written Consent, Rehearing, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.08
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3701(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3071

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121051-REL Decision – 930803.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:15 (46.9 KB)

21F-H2121051-REL Decision – 935756.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:15 (124.8 KB)

Keith D Smith v. Sierra Foothills Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120003-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-06-03
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keith D Smith Counsel —
Respondent Sierra Foothills Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 7.1(C)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition, alleging violations of CC&R section 7.1(C) and ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248, was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on both alleged violations.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence to support either the alleged open meeting law violation or the claim that the monument sign rule was unreasonable/discriminatory.

Key Issues & Findings

Board authority to adopt rules that allegedly unreasonably discriminate among Owners regarding monument sign usage

Petitioner alleged the Association's rule limiting the monument sign use to only Building B units was an unreasonable and discriminatory violation of CC&R 7.1(C) and 6.26(a). The ALJ found the limitation reasonable because Building A units have street frontage available for signage, while Building B units do not.

Orders: Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated CC&R section 7.1(C) because the limitation was reasonable. CC&R section 6.26 only applies to Article 6 and was not violated.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • CC&R section 7.1(C)
  • CC&R section 6.26(a)

Alleged open meeting law violation regarding adoption of the monument sign rule

Petitioner alleged the Board members communicated via email and reached their decision prior to the June 10, 2020 meeting, calling for a vote without discussion, violating open meeting laws. The ALJ found the claim unsubstantiated, noting that discussion did occur and no evidence (emails) was provided.

Orders: Petitioner did not prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1248. The petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-115

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, signage dispute, common elements, rules and regulations, open meeting law, discrimination
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(1)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-115

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120003-REL-RHG Decision – 885949.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:50 (143.3 KB)

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-02-02
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes Counsel Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq.
Respondent Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Counsel Samantha Cote, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 regarding the availability of voting records.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the HOA violated the statute through its NDA request or its method of providing the records (redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes) and failed to prove the records were not made reasonably available within the required statutory time frame.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to comply with voting records request (regarding assessment and cumulative voting records)

Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by requiring an NDA and providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, which prevented Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. Respondent argued it timely provided the totality of the requested information and that the manner of delivery did not violate the statute.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Governance, Statute Violation, Voting Records, Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944169.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:22 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944171.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:22 (184.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120020-REL


Briefing Document: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.

The Petitioners alleged the Association failed to make records “reasonably available” by providing redacted ballots and separate, unredacted envelopes, a method that prevented them from matching specific votes to individual homeowners. They argued this, along with an initial request to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA), constituted an unlawful barrier to access.

The Association countered that it had a duty to balance the Petitioners’ request with the privacy and safety of its members, citing concerns about potential harassment. It argued that by providing the totality of the requested information—albeit in a separated format—it fulfilled its statutory obligations in a reasonable manner and within the required timeframe.

Ultimately, the ALJ ruled in favor of the Association. The decision concluded that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The judge found that the Association’s actions—including the initial NDA request and the methodology of providing separated documents—did not constitute a violation of the statute. While deemed “not ideal,” the method was found to be “reasonable under the totality of underlying circumstances,” and the petition was denied.

Case Background

This matter was adjudicated in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The case revolves around a homeowner’s right to access association records versus an association’s duty to protect its members’ privacy.

Parties Involved

Representation

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes

Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq.

Respondent

Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association

Samantha Cote, Esq.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark

Core Dispute

The central conflict stems from records requests made by the Petitioners in January 2020 for ballots and related documents from two separate votes:

1. A vote on or about October 28, 2019, regarding an increase in dues.

2. A vote in December 2019 regarding a proposed Declaration Amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.

The Petitioners alleged that the Association’s response failed to comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that records be made “reasonably available” for examination.

Procedural History

The dispute followed a lengthy procedural path, beginning with the Petitioners’ initial filing on September 22, 2020. An initial Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued on May 17, 2021. The Petitioners requested and were granted a rehearing on the grounds that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The final hearing detailed in this decision took place on January 13, 2022, after several continuances requested by both parties.

Chronology of Key Events

Oct 4, 2017

The Association’s Board approves and adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots,” mandating secret ballots for votes on special assessments.

Jan 6, 2020

Petitioners submit a written request to view the votes for the proposed amendment on cumulative voting.

Jan 13, 2020

The Association Board meets to discuss the request. Citing member privacy concerns and past complaints of “harassing” behavior by Petitioners, the Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing ballots. Petitioners decline.

Jan 16, 2020

Petitioners’ counsel sends a formal letter requesting all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase vote and the cumulative voting amendment.

Jan 30, 2020

The Association’s attorney responds, stating the Association must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners.” The letter confirms the records will be made available for inspection.

Feb 7, 2020

Petitioners inspect records at the attorney’s office. They are provided two stacks of documents: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. This method, designed to protect voter identity, prevents matching ballots to specific voters. Petitioners review the cumulative voting records for 3.5 hours but do not review the assessment-related documents.

Aug 5, 2020

Petitioners’ attorney sends a new letter demanding “unredacted ballots…along with all envelopes” for the dues increase vote, alleging the secrecy of the ballots was optional. No additional documents are provided by the Association.

Sep 22, 2020

Petitioners file a formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the legal proceedings.

Jan 13, 2022

A rehearing is held before ALJ Jenna Clark, where both parties present oral arguments but no new evidence or testimony.

Feb 2, 2022

ALJ Clark issues the final Administrative Law Judge Decision, denying the Petitioners’ petition.

Central Legal Arguments

At the January 13, 2022, rehearing, both parties presented their final arguments regarding the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Petitioners’ Position (Swanson & Barnes)

• Statutory Requirement: The statute requires unredacted copies of requested documents. The law specifies what records must be produced, not how they can be produced in a modified format.

• Unlawful Barrier: The Association erected an unlawful barrier by providing documents in a manner that made it impossible to “cross reference (i.e. match) the votes with the purported voters.” This did not satisfy the “reasonably available” standard.

• Improper NDA Condition: The Association had no right to condition access to the records on the signing of an NDA, as this is not one of the enumerated exceptions in the statute for withholding documents.

• No Expectation of Privacy: The ballots were not truly “secret ballots” because some homeowners’ names appeared on them or were signed. Therefore, voters could not have held a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Respondent’s Position (Circle G Ranches 4 HOA)

• Statutory Compliance: The Association was not in violation because the statute does not dictate the specific manner or format in which records must be made available. They argued they had “timely provided the totality of records Petitioners had requested.”

• Balancing of Duties: The Association devised a method (providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes) to fulfill its duty to provide records while simultaneously upholding its responsibility to protect members from potential harassment or retaliation, thereby satisfying all its obligations.

• Reasonable Protection: The request to sign an NDA was a reasonable and necessary step to protect members’ privacy regarding their secret ballot votes. Furthermore, it was ultimately irrelevant because the records were provided even after the Petitioners declined to sign.

• Timeliness: All information and documentation requested by the Petitioners had been timely provided to them.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision

The ALJ’s decision was based on an interpretation of the relevant statute and a review of the evidence and arguments presented. The Petitioners bore the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Governing Statute: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A)

“Except as provided in subsection B of this section, 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.” (Emphasis added.)

Key Conclusions of Law

1. NDA Request: The Respondent’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of the statute.

2. Timeliness of Response: The Respondent was required to comply with the January 16, 2020 request by January 31, 2020. The response from the Association’s attorney on January 30, 2020, and the subsequent inspection on February 7, 2020 (a date chosen by Petitioners) did not establish a violation of the 10-day rule.

3. Manner of Delivery: The method used to provide the documents—redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes—did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The ALJ determined that the “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s)” and that the record did not suggest the documents were not made “reasonably available.”

Final Determination

The ALJ concluded that while the Association’s method of document delivery was not perfect, it was legally sufficient.

“While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”

Because the Petitioners did not successfully prove their case, the judge ruled against them.

“…the undersigned Administrative Law Judge must again conclude that because Petitioners did no sustain their burden of proof that the Association committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, their petition must be denied.”

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.

The decision, issued February 2, 2022, is binding on the parties, with any appeal required to be filed with the Superior Court within thirty-five days of the order being served.