Tag Archives: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

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) S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford Burnes and Maria Burnes Counsel Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John Crotty, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 5
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The final decision affirmed the denial of Issues 1, 2, and 3, and the granting of Issue 4. The Association was found to have violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for failing to provide complete records in a timely manner, resulting in the reimbursement of 1/4 of the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Section 5, Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0, and A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs Section 5

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Section 5, by allowing construction on Lot 7 without prior ARC approval of required documents.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 5

Alleged violation of Community Agricultural Design Guidelines Section 4.0

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, by failing to require the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit for Lot 7.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)

Petitioners alleged that the Board conducted an unnoticed closed meeting in violation of Arizona open meeting statutes.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805

Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to timely and completely fulfill a records request submitted on June 04, 2020, specifically by failing to provide missing email attachments.

Orders: Respondent must reimburse 1/4 of Petitioners' filing fee ($125.00). Respondent must henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide the missing email attachments within 10-business days.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Statute Violation, Records Request, Filing Fee Refund, Architectural Review, Open Meetings
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
  • CC&Rs Section 5
  • Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 902726.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:42 (239.9 KB)

Douglas E Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-10-30
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel Counsel —
Respondent Hidden Valley Association Counsel Timothy Butterfield, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the requested records (communications) were in existence and subject to disclosure.

Key Issues & Findings

Failing to fulfill Petitioner’s records request

Petitioner claimed the HOA failed to provide copies of all communications (written/electronic) related to information requests, open meeting law compliance, and changes to bylaws, arguing they were not exempt from disclosure under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B). The HOA asserted no disclosable records existed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for civil penalty are denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Records Disclosure, ARIZ. REV. STAT. 33-1805, Burden of Proof, Preponderance of Evidence
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Decision Documents

21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:59 (147.6 KB)

Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.

Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • 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. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918037-REL-RHG Decision – 737525.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:08:32 (176.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The central issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to adequately fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.

The initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in an April 10, 2019, decision in favor of the Association. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and thus the Association’s partial response (a summary table) did not constitute a statutory violation.

Following a successful appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner had followed prior express instructions from the Association regarding who to contact for records requests. Consequently, the ALJ issued a new decision on September 12, 2019, reversing the original order. The final ruling found the Association in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and was assessed a civil penalty of $500.

Case Overview

Case Numbers

No. 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)
No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

Petitioner

Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

Respondent

Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Central Issue

Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request for Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, requests, and approvals.

Initial Petition

Filed by Tom Barrs on December 17, 2018.

Initial Hearing

March 21, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.

Rehearing

August 27, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.

Final Outcome

Petition granted in favor of Tom Barrs. The Association was found in violation of state law, ordered to reimburse the filing fee, and fined.

Key Individuals and Entities

Role / Affiliation

Tom Barrs

Petitioner; homeowner in the Desert Ranch subdivision.

Desert Ranch HOA

Respondent; homeowners’ association.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Brian Schoeffler

Chairman of the Association’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC); appeared on behalf of the Association.

Catherine Overby

President of the Association’s Board of Directors.

Lori Loch-Lee

Vice President of Client Services at Associated Asset Management (AAM), the Association’s accounting/management company.

Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.

Attorney who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner at the rehearing.

The Records Request and Subsequent Dispute

The Initial Request

On November 1, 2018, at 9:40 p.m., Petitioner submitted an electronic records request to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee. The text of the request was as follows:

“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”

The Association’s Response and Petitioner’s Follow-Up

• November 2, 2018: Lori Loch-Lee from AAM notified the Petitioner she would forward his request to all Board members, noting that AAM was only the Association’s accounting firm.

• November 18, 2018: The Petitioner received a summary table listing some EDC actions, not the complete set of communications and documents requested. At this time, he was advised by Brian Schoeffler that he “needed to copy all Board members on records requests.”

• March 6, 2019: The Petitioner sent a follow-up email, accusing the Association of willful failure and clarifying the specific records he sought beyond the summary table, including “copies of the communications (letters, emails, and application forms) relating to Environmental Design Review (EDC) submissions, requests, complaints and approvals (or denials).”

• March 11, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler replied, arguing that the request had been complied with on November 18, 2018, and directed the Petitioner to “submit a new request” for the additional information.

• March 17, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler reiterated that the original request was only sent to two of four Board members and stated that providing additional documents could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

As of the rehearing date (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.

Legal Proceedings and Rulings

Initial Hearing and Decision (April 10, 2019)

In the first hearing, the dispute centered on the validity of the request submission and the adequacy of the Association’s response.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Barrs): Argued the Association acted in bad faith and willfully failed to fulfill the request, noting a similar dispute had been previously adjudicated. He was concerned with the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.

• Respondent (HOA): Argued it had complied with the request by providing a summary table, consistent with its handling of a previous dispute with the Petitioner. Mr. Schoeffler testified that the response was untimely (provided on the 11th business day) but asserted it was otherwise sufficient.

ALJ Conclusion: The Judge ruled in favor of the Association, denying the Petitioner’s petition. The key finding was that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request.

“Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”

The decision also noted that the statute does not legally obligate an HOA to email copies of records.

Rehearing and Final Decision (September 12, 2019)

After the Petitioner’s appeal was granted, a rehearing introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome.

New Evidence and Concessions:

• July 19, 2017 Instruction: Evidence showed Association President Catherine Overby had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s “primary records request contact.”

• July 18, 2018 Instruction: Evidence showed Ms. Overby had also instructed the Petitioner to direct requests to the management company, AAM.

• Association Concessions: The Respondent conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests and that its own bylaws regarding submission forms are not adhered to or enforced.

ALJ’s Reversed Conclusion: The Judge reversed the prior decision and granted the Petitioner’s petition. The new evidence proved the Petitioner had followed express instructions from the Association.

“Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”

The Judge concluded that the partial response was a clear violation of the law.

“Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

Final Order and Penalties

The Administrative Law Judge’s Final Order on September 12, 2019, which is binding on the parties, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent (Desert Ranch HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.


Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.

Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • 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. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918037-REL-RHG Decision – 737525.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:57 (176.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The central issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to adequately fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.

The initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in an April 10, 2019, decision in favor of the Association. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and thus the Association’s partial response (a summary table) did not constitute a statutory violation.

Following a successful appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner had followed prior express instructions from the Association regarding who to contact for records requests. Consequently, the ALJ issued a new decision on September 12, 2019, reversing the original order. The final ruling found the Association in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and was assessed a civil penalty of $500.

Case Overview

Case Numbers

No. 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)
No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

Petitioner

Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

Respondent

Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Central Issue

Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request for Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, requests, and approvals.

Initial Petition

Filed by Tom Barrs on December 17, 2018.

Initial Hearing

March 21, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.

Rehearing

August 27, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.

Final Outcome

Petition granted in favor of Tom Barrs. The Association was found in violation of state law, ordered to reimburse the filing fee, and fined.

Key Individuals and Entities

Role / Affiliation

Tom Barrs

Petitioner; homeowner in the Desert Ranch subdivision.

Desert Ranch HOA

Respondent; homeowners’ association.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Brian Schoeffler

Chairman of the Association’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC); appeared on behalf of the Association.

Catherine Overby

President of the Association’s Board of Directors.

Lori Loch-Lee

Vice President of Client Services at Associated Asset Management (AAM), the Association’s accounting/management company.

Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.

Attorney who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner at the rehearing.

The Records Request and Subsequent Dispute

The Initial Request

On November 1, 2018, at 9:40 p.m., Petitioner submitted an electronic records request to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee. The text of the request was as follows:

“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”

The Association’s Response and Petitioner’s Follow-Up

• November 2, 2018: Lori Loch-Lee from AAM notified the Petitioner she would forward his request to all Board members, noting that AAM was only the Association’s accounting firm.

• November 18, 2018: The Petitioner received a summary table listing some EDC actions, not the complete set of communications and documents requested. At this time, he was advised by Brian Schoeffler that he “needed to copy all Board members on records requests.”

• March 6, 2019: The Petitioner sent a follow-up email, accusing the Association of willful failure and clarifying the specific records he sought beyond the summary table, including “copies of the communications (letters, emails, and application forms) relating to Environmental Design Review (EDC) submissions, requests, complaints and approvals (or denials).”

• March 11, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler replied, arguing that the request had been complied with on November 18, 2018, and directed the Petitioner to “submit a new request” for the additional information.

• March 17, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler reiterated that the original request was only sent to two of four Board members and stated that providing additional documents could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

As of the rehearing date (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.

Legal Proceedings and Rulings

Initial Hearing and Decision (April 10, 2019)

In the first hearing, the dispute centered on the validity of the request submission and the adequacy of the Association’s response.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Barrs): Argued the Association acted in bad faith and willfully failed to fulfill the request, noting a similar dispute had been previously adjudicated. He was concerned with the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.

• Respondent (HOA): Argued it had complied with the request by providing a summary table, consistent with its handling of a previous dispute with the Petitioner. Mr. Schoeffler testified that the response was untimely (provided on the 11th business day) but asserted it was otherwise sufficient.

ALJ Conclusion: The Judge ruled in favor of the Association, denying the Petitioner’s petition. The key finding was that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request.

“Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”

The decision also noted that the statute does not legally obligate an HOA to email copies of records.

Rehearing and Final Decision (September 12, 2019)

After the Petitioner’s appeal was granted, a rehearing introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome.

New Evidence and Concessions:

• July 19, 2017 Instruction: Evidence showed Association President Catherine Overby had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s “primary records request contact.”

• July 18, 2018 Instruction: Evidence showed Ms. Overby had also instructed the Petitioner to direct requests to the management company, AAM.

• Association Concessions: The Respondent conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests and that its own bylaws regarding submission forms are not adhered to or enforced.

ALJ’s Reversed Conclusion: The Judge reversed the prior decision and granted the Petitioner’s petition. The new evidence proved the Petitioner had followed express instructions from the Association.

“Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”

The Judge concluded that the partial response was a clear violation of the law.

“Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

Final Order and Penalties

The Administrative Law Judge’s Final Order on September 12, 2019, which is binding on the parties, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent (Desert Ranch HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.


Tom J Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome respondent_win
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom J Martin Counsel —
Respondent SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. Counsel Carolyn B. Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A); ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)

Outcome Summary

The case was dismissed because the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction, as the alleged violations (HOA website and policy BC-3) did not pertain to 'community documents' as defined by Arizona statute.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A) by alleging violations of documents (website, policy manual) that are not defined as 'community documents' under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2).

Key Issues & Findings

Jurisdiction based on alleged violations of non-community documents (HOA website and policy manual)

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its website and Policy BC-3 by failing to provide pickleball courts as advertised, requesting $463,112.00 in financial support or court construction. The ALJ found that neither the website nor Policy BC-3 are defined as 'community documents' under A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), thus denying jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A). The petition was dismissed.

Orders: Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-213
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Walker v. Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206, 786 P.2d 1057 (App. 1989)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, community_documents, dismissal, policy_manual, pickleball, statutory_interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-213
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc.
  • Walker v. Scottsdale

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918022-REL-RHG Decision – 704322.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:07:45 (89.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Martin v. SaddleBrooke HOA #1

Executive Summary

The petition filed by Tom J. Martin against the SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. was dismissed by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The core of the decision rests on a strict interpretation of Arizona state law, which limits the hearing office’s authority to violations of formally defined “community documents.”

Mr. Martin’s primary grievance was the HOA’s alleged failure to provide and fund pickleball courts as advertised on its website and outlined in an internal policy document (Policy BC-3). However, the ALJ found that neither an HOA’s website nor its internal policies qualify as “community documents” under the statutory definition, which is restricted to the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, and rules. Mr. Martin’s attempt to equate “policy” with “rule” was deemed unpersuasive because the policy in question had not been formally adopted as a rule by the HOA.

Furthermore, the specific relief requested by Mr. Martin—a demand for $463,112.00, the construction of eight new courts, and mandated maintenance funding—was found to be outside the scope of the ALJ’s statutory authority to grant. The dismissal, issued as a result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

Case Background and Procedural History

This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in case number 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG, presided over by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden. The matter involved a dispute between Petitioner Tom J. Martin and Respondent SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

September 28, 2018

Mr. Martin filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 30, 2018

The HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, challenging the Department’s jurisdiction.

December 4, 2018

Mr. Martin filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss.

December 12, 2018

An Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, ordering the petition be dismissed.

December 31, 2018

Mr. Martin filed a request for a rehearing.

April 16, 2019

The rehearing was conducted.

May 10, 2019

The final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Requested Relief

Initial Petition Allegations

• The core of Mr. Martin’s petition, filed September 28, 2018, was the allegation that the SaddleBrooke HOA violated its website and its policy manual, specifically Policy Number BC-3.

• The central claim was that “the Association is in violation for not providing pickleball courts as advertised and marketed….”

• While Mr. Martin checked boxes on the petition form indicating violations of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, he did not identify any specific provisions of those documents in his initial filing.

Allegations on Rehearing

In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Martin attempted to amend his claim by alleging specific violations of formal community documents:

• He argued the HOA violated Bylaws article 4, section 6(3) by failing to implement policy BC-3.

• He alleged the HOA violated Articles of Incorporation Article XII by not providing pickleball as promised, which he tied back to the failure to implement policy BC-3.

Requested Relief

Mr. Martin sought significant remedies from the HOA, requesting that it either:

1. Provide financial support of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon; or

2. Provide eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year.

Additionally, he demanded that the HOA be held financially responsible for the maintenance of the pickleball courts in an amount equal to what it spent on eight tennis courts.

Respondent’s Jurisdictional Challenge

The SaddleBrooke HOA’s primary defense was a jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the petition fell outside the legal authority of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Limited Jurisdiction: The HOA contended that pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01, administrative hearings are limited to disputes regarding violations of “planned community documents” or applicable state statutes.

• Definition of “Community Documents”: The HOA cited ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2), which defines “community documents” as “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.”

• Exclusion of Policies and Websites: Based on this statutory definition, the HOA argued that its website and Policy BC-3 are not “community documents,” and therefore any alleged violation of them cannot be adjudicated in this forum.

• Authority to Grant Relief: The HOA also argued that the specific financial and construction-related relief Mr. Martin sought was not within the tribunal’s authority to grant.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Legal Rationale

The ALJ ultimately sided with the Respondent HOA and ordered the petition dismissed. The decision was based on a strict application of Arizona statutes governing planned communities and the administrative hearing process.

Conclusions of Law

1. Statutory Limitations: The judge affirmed that hearings under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) are restricted to alleged “violations of … planned community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate … planned communities.”

2. Definition of “Community Documents” is Controlling: The decision hinges on the explicit definition of “community documents” in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2). The judge noted that the tribunal must follow definitions provided by the legislature. The finding states: “This definition does not include a planned community’s statements of policy, statements on its website, or advertising and marketing material.”

3. A “Policy” is Not a “Rule”: Mr. Martin’s argument that a “policy” should be interpreted as a “rule” was found to be “not persuasive.” The judge found that the HOA had not formally adopted Policy BC-3 as a rule under the authority granted in its CC&Rs (section 4.5). Therefore, the policy could not be treated as an enforceable “community document.”

4. Petition’s Failure to Meet Requirements: Because Mr. Martin’s original petition only alleged violations of the website and the policy manual—neither of which are legally defined as community documents—the petition “does not meet the requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01(A).”

5. Relief Outside of Authority: The ALJ also concluded that the requested relief was “not within the scope of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority” as prescribed by A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. The statute allows an ALJ to order a party to abide by the documents at issue and levy civil penalties, but not to order large monetary payments for construction or specific performance of capital projects.

Final Order

• “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.”

• The decision, being the result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

• Any party wishing to appeal must file for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date of service of the order.


Tom J Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome respondent_win
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom J Martin Counsel —
Respondent SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. Counsel Carolyn B. Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A); ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)

Outcome Summary

The case was dismissed because the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction, as the alleged violations (HOA website and policy BC-3) did not pertain to 'community documents' as defined by Arizona statute.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A) by alleging violations of documents (website, policy manual) that are not defined as 'community documents' under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2).

Key Issues & Findings

Jurisdiction based on alleged violations of non-community documents (HOA website and policy manual)

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its website and Policy BC-3 by failing to provide pickleball courts as advertised, requesting $463,112.00 in financial support or court construction. The ALJ found that neither the website nor Policy BC-3 are defined as 'community documents' under A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), thus denying jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A). The petition was dismissed.

Orders: Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-213
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Walker v. Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206, 786 P.2d 1057 (App. 1989)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, community_documents, dismissal, policy_manual, pickleball, statutory_interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-213
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc.
  • Walker v. Scottsdale

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918022-REL-RHG Decision – 704322.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:41 (89.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Martin v. SaddleBrooke HOA #1

Executive Summary

The petition filed by Tom J. Martin against the SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. was dismissed by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The core of the decision rests on a strict interpretation of Arizona state law, which limits the hearing office’s authority to violations of formally defined “community documents.”

Mr. Martin’s primary grievance was the HOA’s alleged failure to provide and fund pickleball courts as advertised on its website and outlined in an internal policy document (Policy BC-3). However, the ALJ found that neither an HOA’s website nor its internal policies qualify as “community documents” under the statutory definition, which is restricted to the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, and rules. Mr. Martin’s attempt to equate “policy” with “rule” was deemed unpersuasive because the policy in question had not been formally adopted as a rule by the HOA.

Furthermore, the specific relief requested by Mr. Martin—a demand for $463,112.00, the construction of eight new courts, and mandated maintenance funding—was found to be outside the scope of the ALJ’s statutory authority to grant. The dismissal, issued as a result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

Case Background and Procedural History

This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in case number 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG, presided over by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden. The matter involved a dispute between Petitioner Tom J. Martin and Respondent SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

September 28, 2018

Mr. Martin filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 30, 2018

The HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, challenging the Department’s jurisdiction.

December 4, 2018

Mr. Martin filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss.

December 12, 2018

An Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, ordering the petition be dismissed.

December 31, 2018

Mr. Martin filed a request for a rehearing.

April 16, 2019

The rehearing was conducted.

May 10, 2019

The final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Requested Relief

Initial Petition Allegations

• The core of Mr. Martin’s petition, filed September 28, 2018, was the allegation that the SaddleBrooke HOA violated its website and its policy manual, specifically Policy Number BC-3.

• The central claim was that “the Association is in violation for not providing pickleball courts as advertised and marketed….”

• While Mr. Martin checked boxes on the petition form indicating violations of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, he did not identify any specific provisions of those documents in his initial filing.

Allegations on Rehearing

In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Martin attempted to amend his claim by alleging specific violations of formal community documents:

• He argued the HOA violated Bylaws article 4, section 6(3) by failing to implement policy BC-3.

• He alleged the HOA violated Articles of Incorporation Article XII by not providing pickleball as promised, which he tied back to the failure to implement policy BC-3.

Requested Relief

Mr. Martin sought significant remedies from the HOA, requesting that it either:

1. Provide financial support of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon; or

2. Provide eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year.

Additionally, he demanded that the HOA be held financially responsible for the maintenance of the pickleball courts in an amount equal to what it spent on eight tennis courts.

Respondent’s Jurisdictional Challenge

The SaddleBrooke HOA’s primary defense was a jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the petition fell outside the legal authority of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Limited Jurisdiction: The HOA contended that pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01, administrative hearings are limited to disputes regarding violations of “planned community documents” or applicable state statutes.

• Definition of “Community Documents”: The HOA cited ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2), which defines “community documents” as “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.”

• Exclusion of Policies and Websites: Based on this statutory definition, the HOA argued that its website and Policy BC-3 are not “community documents,” and therefore any alleged violation of them cannot be adjudicated in this forum.

• Authority to Grant Relief: The HOA also argued that the specific financial and construction-related relief Mr. Martin sought was not within the tribunal’s authority to grant.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Legal Rationale

The ALJ ultimately sided with the Respondent HOA and ordered the petition dismissed. The decision was based on a strict application of Arizona statutes governing planned communities and the administrative hearing process.

Conclusions of Law

1. Statutory Limitations: The judge affirmed that hearings under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) are restricted to alleged “violations of … planned community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate … planned communities.”

2. Definition of “Community Documents” is Controlling: The decision hinges on the explicit definition of “community documents” in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2). The judge noted that the tribunal must follow definitions provided by the legislature. The finding states: “This definition does not include a planned community’s statements of policy, statements on its website, or advertising and marketing material.”

3. A “Policy” is Not a “Rule”: Mr. Martin’s argument that a “policy” should be interpreted as a “rule” was found to be “not persuasive.” The judge found that the HOA had not formally adopted Policy BC-3 as a rule under the authority granted in its CC&Rs (section 4.5). Therefore, the policy could not be treated as an enforceable “community document.”

4. Petition’s Failure to Meet Requirements: Because Mr. Martin’s original petition only alleged violations of the website and the policy manual—neither of which are legally defined as community documents—the petition “does not meet the requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01(A).”

5. Relief Outside of Authority: The ALJ also concluded that the requested relief was “not within the scope of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority” as prescribed by A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. The statute allows an ALJ to order a party to abide by the documents at issue and levy civil penalties, but not to order large monetary payments for construction or specific performance of capital projects.

Final Order

• “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.”

• The decision, being the result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

• Any party wishing to appeal must file for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date of service of the order.


Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.

Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • 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. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:08:27 (149.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL


Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The central issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to adequately fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.

The initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in an April 10, 2019, decision in favor of the Association. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and thus the Association’s partial response (a summary table) did not constitute a statutory violation.

Following a successful appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner had followed prior express instructions from the Association regarding who to contact for records requests. Consequently, the ALJ issued a new decision on September 12, 2019, reversing the original order. The final ruling found the Association in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and was assessed a civil penalty of $500.

Case Overview

Case Numbers

No. 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)
No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

Petitioner

Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

Respondent

Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Central Issue

Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request for Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, requests, and approvals.

Initial Petition

Filed by Tom Barrs on December 17, 2018.

Initial Hearing

March 21, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.

Rehearing

August 27, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.

Final Outcome

Petition granted in favor of Tom Barrs. The Association was found in violation of state law, ordered to reimburse the filing fee, and fined.

Key Individuals and Entities

Role / Affiliation

Tom Barrs

Petitioner; homeowner in the Desert Ranch subdivision.

Desert Ranch HOA

Respondent; homeowners’ association.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Brian Schoeffler

Chairman of the Association’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC); appeared on behalf of the Association.

Catherine Overby

President of the Association’s Board of Directors.

Lori Loch-Lee

Vice President of Client Services at Associated Asset Management (AAM), the Association’s accounting/management company.

Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.

Attorney who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner at the rehearing.

The Records Request and Subsequent Dispute

The Initial Request

On November 1, 2018, at 9:40 p.m., Petitioner submitted an electronic records request to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee. The text of the request was as follows:

“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”

The Association’s Response and Petitioner’s Follow-Up

• November 2, 2018: Lori Loch-Lee from AAM notified the Petitioner she would forward his request to all Board members, noting that AAM was only the Association’s accounting firm.

• November 18, 2018: The Petitioner received a summary table listing some EDC actions, not the complete set of communications and documents requested. At this time, he was advised by Brian Schoeffler that he “needed to copy all Board members on records requests.”

• March 6, 2019: The Petitioner sent a follow-up email, accusing the Association of willful failure and clarifying the specific records he sought beyond the summary table, including “copies of the communications (letters, emails, and application forms) relating to Environmental Design Review (EDC) submissions, requests, complaints and approvals (or denials).”

• March 11, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler replied, arguing that the request had been complied with on November 18, 2018, and directed the Petitioner to “submit a new request” for the additional information.

• March 17, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler reiterated that the original request was only sent to two of four Board members and stated that providing additional documents could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

As of the rehearing date (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.

Legal Proceedings and Rulings

Initial Hearing and Decision (April 10, 2019)

In the first hearing, the dispute centered on the validity of the request submission and the adequacy of the Association’s response.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Barrs): Argued the Association acted in bad faith and willfully failed to fulfill the request, noting a similar dispute had been previously adjudicated. He was concerned with the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.

• Respondent (HOA): Argued it had complied with the request by providing a summary table, consistent with its handling of a previous dispute with the Petitioner. Mr. Schoeffler testified that the response was untimely (provided on the 11th business day) but asserted it was otherwise sufficient.

ALJ Conclusion: The Judge ruled in favor of the Association, denying the Petitioner’s petition. The key finding was that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request.

“Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”

The decision also noted that the statute does not legally obligate an HOA to email copies of records.

Rehearing and Final Decision (September 12, 2019)

After the Petitioner’s appeal was granted, a rehearing introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome.

New Evidence and Concessions:

• July 19, 2017 Instruction: Evidence showed Association President Catherine Overby had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s “primary records request contact.”

• July 18, 2018 Instruction: Evidence showed Ms. Overby had also instructed the Petitioner to direct requests to the management company, AAM.

• Association Concessions: The Respondent conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests and that its own bylaws regarding submission forms are not adhered to or enforced.

ALJ’s Reversed Conclusion: The Judge reversed the prior decision and granted the Petitioner’s petition. The new evidence proved the Petitioner had followed express instructions from the Association.

“Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”

The Judge concluded that the partial response was a clear violation of the law.

“Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

Final Order and Penalties

The Administrative Law Judge’s Final Order on September 12, 2019, which is binding on the parties, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent (Desert Ranch HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.


Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.

Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • 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. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:55 (149.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL


Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The central issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to adequately fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.

The initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in an April 10, 2019, decision in favor of the Association. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and thus the Association’s partial response (a summary table) did not constitute a statutory violation.

Following a successful appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner had followed prior express instructions from the Association regarding who to contact for records requests. Consequently, the ALJ issued a new decision on September 12, 2019, reversing the original order. The final ruling found the Association in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and was assessed a civil penalty of $500.

Case Overview

Case Numbers

No. 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)
No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

Petitioner

Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

Respondent

Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Central Issue

Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request for Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, requests, and approvals.

Initial Petition

Filed by Tom Barrs on December 17, 2018.

Initial Hearing

March 21, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.

Rehearing

August 27, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.

Final Outcome

Petition granted in favor of Tom Barrs. The Association was found in violation of state law, ordered to reimburse the filing fee, and fined.

Key Individuals and Entities

Role / Affiliation

Tom Barrs

Petitioner; homeowner in the Desert Ranch subdivision.

Desert Ranch HOA

Respondent; homeowners’ association.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Brian Schoeffler

Chairman of the Association’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC); appeared on behalf of the Association.

Catherine Overby

President of the Association’s Board of Directors.

Lori Loch-Lee

Vice President of Client Services at Associated Asset Management (AAM), the Association’s accounting/management company.

Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.

Attorney who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner at the rehearing.

The Records Request and Subsequent Dispute

The Initial Request

On November 1, 2018, at 9:40 p.m., Petitioner submitted an electronic records request to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee. The text of the request was as follows:

“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”

The Association’s Response and Petitioner’s Follow-Up

• November 2, 2018: Lori Loch-Lee from AAM notified the Petitioner she would forward his request to all Board members, noting that AAM was only the Association’s accounting firm.

• November 18, 2018: The Petitioner received a summary table listing some EDC actions, not the complete set of communications and documents requested. At this time, he was advised by Brian Schoeffler that he “needed to copy all Board members on records requests.”

• March 6, 2019: The Petitioner sent a follow-up email, accusing the Association of willful failure and clarifying the specific records he sought beyond the summary table, including “copies of the communications (letters, emails, and application forms) relating to Environmental Design Review (EDC) submissions, requests, complaints and approvals (or denials).”

• March 11, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler replied, arguing that the request had been complied with on November 18, 2018, and directed the Petitioner to “submit a new request” for the additional information.

• March 17, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler reiterated that the original request was only sent to two of four Board members and stated that providing additional documents could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

As of the rehearing date (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.

Legal Proceedings and Rulings

Initial Hearing and Decision (April 10, 2019)

In the first hearing, the dispute centered on the validity of the request submission and the adequacy of the Association’s response.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Barrs): Argued the Association acted in bad faith and willfully failed to fulfill the request, noting a similar dispute had been previously adjudicated. He was concerned with the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.

• Respondent (HOA): Argued it had complied with the request by providing a summary table, consistent with its handling of a previous dispute with the Petitioner. Mr. Schoeffler testified that the response was untimely (provided on the 11th business day) but asserted it was otherwise sufficient.

ALJ Conclusion: The Judge ruled in favor of the Association, denying the Petitioner’s petition. The key finding was that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request.

“Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”

The decision also noted that the statute does not legally obligate an HOA to email copies of records.

Rehearing and Final Decision (September 12, 2019)

After the Petitioner’s appeal was granted, a rehearing introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome.

New Evidence and Concessions:

• July 19, 2017 Instruction: Evidence showed Association President Catherine Overby had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s “primary records request contact.”

• July 18, 2018 Instruction: Evidence showed Ms. Overby had also instructed the Petitioner to direct requests to the management company, AAM.

• Association Concessions: The Respondent conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests and that its own bylaws regarding submission forms are not adhered to or enforced.

ALJ’s Reversed Conclusion: The Judge reversed the prior decision and granted the Petitioner’s petition. The new evidence proved the Petitioner had followed express instructions from the Association.

“Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”

The Judge concluded that the partial response was a clear violation of the law.

“Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

Final Order and Penalties

The Administrative Law Judge’s Final Order on September 12, 2019, which is binding on the parties, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent (Desert Ranch HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.


Jerry R. Collis vs. Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H18020-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-12-20
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jerry R. Collis Counsel —
Respondent Laveen Meadows HOA c/o Planned Development Services Counsel Chad Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 10.11.2, 10.11.4, and 10.16; A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's challenge against the HOA was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes when issuing citations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to HOA fine citations/improper enforcement of parking and nuisance rules

Petitioner claimed the Respondent HOA improperly issued citations against him for vehicle violations (inoperable vehicle, street parking, nuisance), asserting the HOA could not violate CC&R 10.11.4 but that the citations alleging the violation were unwarranted.

Orders: Petitioner Jerry R. Collis’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&Rs, Vehicle Parking, Nuisance, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H18020-REL Decision – 677244.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:06:27 (97.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H18020-REL


Briefing Document: Collis v. Laveen Meadows HOA (Case No. 19F-H18020-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H18020-REL, involving Petitioner Jerry R. Collis and Respondent Laveen Meadows HOA. The central issue was a series of violation notices and fines issued by the HOA to Mr. Collis regarding his vehicle.

The petition, filed by Mr. Collis, was ultimately dismissed. The Judge ruled that Mr. Collis failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the Laveen Meadows HOA had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or any applicable statutes.

The core of Mr. Collis’s argument was that the HOA wrongly cited him for having an “inoperable vehicle” under CC&R Section 10.11.4, when his vehicle was, in fact, always in operating condition. However, the Judge’s decision rested on the finding that the HOA’s actions were based on multiple violations. While all seven violation notices were titled “Inoperable Vehicle,” evidence and testimony confirmed the vehicle was also in violation of CC&R Section 10.16 (Nuisances) due to its unsightly condition (cobwebs, debris, a flat tire, and a covered window) and Section 10.11.2 (Parking on streets). Because the citations were justified by these other violations, Mr. Collis’s claim regarding the vehicle’s operability was insufficient to invalidate the HOA’s actions.

——————————————————————————–

1. Case Overview

The matter was brought before the Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by Jerry R. Collis with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on September 17, 2018. A hearing was held on December 4, 2018, to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Collis and the Laveen Meadows HOA.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H18020-REL

Petitioner

Jerry R. Collis

Respondent

Laveen Meadows HOA

Administrative Law Judge

Thomas Shedden

Hearing Date

December 4, 2018

Decision Date

December 20, 2018

——————————————————————————–

2. Central Arguments and Positions

Petitioner’s Position (Jerry R. Collis)

• Mr. Collis’s primary contention was that the HOA improperly issued citations alleging his vehicle was “inoperable” in violation of CC&R Section 10.11.4.

• He testified that the vehicle was never inoperable.

• Although his initial petition stated the HOA violated Section 10.11.4, he clarified at the hearing that the issue was the HOA wrongly cited him for violating that provision.

Respondent’s Position (Laveen Meadows HOA)

• The HOA, represented by Community Manager Lisa Riesland, argued that the citations were based on more than just the “inoperable vehicle” clause.

• The HOA asserted that Mr. Collis’s vehicle was in violation of three separate CC&R sections:

◦ Section 10.11.2: Prohibiting parking on streets.

◦ Section 10.11.4: Prohibiting non-operating motor vehicles in unenclosed parking areas.

◦ Section 10.16: Prohibiting nuisances, defined to include “unsightly” conditions or those that could “reasonably cause annoyance to other members of the Association.”

——————————————————————————–

3. Analysis of Evidence and Findings of Fact

The Judge’s decision was based on testimony and a series of seven notifications sent by the HOA to Mr. Collis between September 2016 and June 2017.

Violation Notices

• A total of seven notifications/letters were sent to Mr. Collis regarding his vehicle.

• All seven notices included the identical violation description: “Violation: Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle.”

• Critically, none of the notices cited a specific CC&R section number that was allegedly violated.

• The letters also made reference to “cobwebs and debris on or beneath the vehicle.”

Vehicle Condition and Nuisance Violation

• Unsightliness: Lisa Riesland provided credible testimony that at various times, the vehicle had cobwebs extending from the chassis to the ground with leaves trapped within them. This was deemed to constitute an “unsightly condition” under CC&R Section 10.16.

• Vandalism and Disrepair: At the time of the June 2017 notices, the vehicle also had a flat tire and a window covered with a bag or cardboard. Mr. Collis acknowledged these facts, explaining they were the result of vandalism.

Chronology of Violations, Fines, and Appeals

The document outlines a series of escalating fines. In each instance where a fine was issued, Mr. Collis was informed of his right to appeal to the HOA Board and his right to request an administrative hearing.

Action by HOA

Fine/Fee Charged

Evidence of Appeal by Mr. Collis

Sep 19, 2016

Notification of violation (expired tags, inoperable vehicle on street).

Not applicable

Oct 11, 2016

Notification of potential $25 fine if not corrected.

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

Dec 1, 2016

Letter informing a $25 fine had been charged.

$25.00

Mr. Collis appealed to the Board.

Jan 26, 2017

Letter from Board informing Mr. Collis his appeal was denied.

Appeal outcome. No evidence of hearing request.

Apr 20, 2017

Letter informing a $50 fine and $10 mailing fee had been charged.

$60.00

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

May 9, 2017

Letter informing a $100 fine and $10 mailing fee had been charged.

$110.00

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

May 23, 2017

Letter informing a $100 fine and $10 mailing fee had been charged.

$110.00

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

June 8, 2017

Letter informing a $100 fine and $10 mailing fee had been charged.

$110.00

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

June 26, 2017

Letter informing a $100 fine and $10 mailing fee had been charged.

$110.00

No evidence of appeal or hearing request.

——————————————————————————–

4. Legal Rationale and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s ruling centered on the burden of proof and the contractual nature of the CC&Rs.

Burden of Proof

• Mr. Collis, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

• A preponderance of the evidence is defined as evidence with the “most convincing force” that is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Core Legal Conclusion

• The Judge concluded that the evidence demonstrated the HOA issued citations based on violations of CC&R Sections 10.11.2 (street parking), 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicle), and 10.16 (nuisance).

• Because the violations were multifaceted, Mr. Collis’s singular focus on the vehicle’s operability was insufficient to prove the HOA acted improperly.

• The decision states: “Consequently, showing that his vehicle was in operating condition would not be sufficient to show that the citations were unwarranted.”

• The Judge found that Mr. Collis failed to show that the HOA violated any of its CC&Rs, community documents, or the statutes regulating planned communities.

Final Order

• IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jerry R. Collis’s petition is dismissed.

• The Respondent, Laveen Meadows HOA, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

• The order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.