Raymond M Uyleman v. Casita Royale Townhomes Association

Posted on November 23, 2021 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2221006-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-11-22
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Raymond M Uyleman	Counsel	—
Respondent	Casita Royale Townhomes Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article 4 Section 2, and Article 8 Sections 2 and 3

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was granted in part and denied in part. The ALJ found the Respondent Association violated its Bylaws regarding the election and terms of Board members. Respondent was ordered to comply with the relevant Bylaw sections and reimburse $375.00 of the filing fee. Petitioner's prayer to remove the current Board from office was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner’s prayer to remove the Association’s current Board from office was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Unlawful transfer of Board positions and Association bank account

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Bylaws when the former President/Treasurer unlawfully transferred his Board positions and the bank account to new individuals without proper election procedures. The ALJ found the Association was in violation of Bylaws requiring a minimum of five directors and regular annual elections for those positions.

Orders: Respondent must henceforth comply with Bylaws Article 4 Section 2, and Article 8 Sections 2 and 3, and reimburse $375.00 of the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Bylaws Article 4 Section 2
Bylaws Article 8 Section 2
Bylaws Article 8 Section 3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Board Election, Bylaws Violation, Director Appointment, Filing Fee Reimbursement

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221006-REL Decision – 927006.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:59 (152.9 KB)

Nancy Bender v. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.

Posted on August 23, 2021 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

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 August 13, 2021 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

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)

Lori & James Jordan v. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners’

Posted on December 1, 2020 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2120014-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-12-01
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Lori & James Jordan	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 3.04, 3.07 & 3.09; 2012 Rules and Regulations Section 19

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the CC&Rs regarding sewer maintenance or deductible apportionment, finding that the Association properly applied its 2012 Rules and Regulations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs in apportioning a proportionate share of the insurance deductible.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over apportionment of insurance deductible following sewer backup damage in a common area.

Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to apportion 43.84% ($10,958.96) of the insurance deductible to her unit following damage caused by a main sewer line blockage in a common area.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Title 33, Chapter 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes
CC&Rs Sections 3.04, 3.07, 3.09
2012 Rules and Regulations Section 19

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Deductible Apportionment, Sewer Maintenance, Common Area, Condominium Documents, Rules and Regulations

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Title 33, Chapter 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120014-REL Decision – 840033.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:14 (138.3 KB)

Wendy Ellsworth v. Vincenz Homeowners’ Association

Posted on September 8, 2020 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020043-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-09-08
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Wendy Ellsworth	Counsel	Brian Hatch
Respondent	Vincenz Homeowners' Association	Counsel	Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

VHA CC&R Article 10 § 10.11.1

Outcome Summary

The petition concerning the alleged violation of CC&R section 10.11.1 by the HOA was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment request regarding waiver of enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that VHA violated CC&R section 10.11.1 by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to rule on the declaratory judgment requested by the Petitioner regarding VHA's waiver of its enforcement rights.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R Article 10, Section 10.11.1 regarding parking enforcement and waiver

Petitioner alleged VHA waived its right to enforce CC&R 10.11.1 (parking prohibition) because violations had been frequent since inception. The tribunal found Petitioner failed to establish VHA violated section 10.11.1, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction regarding the requested declaratory judgment on waiver of enforcement.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Violation, Parking, Waiver, Jurisdiction

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020043-REL Decision – 820839.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:11:06 (95.4 KB)

Wendy Ellsworth v. Vincenz Homeowners’ Association

Posted on September 8, 2020 by jeremy@yourazhoaattorney.com

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020043-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-09-08
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Wendy Ellsworth	Counsel	Brian Hatch
Respondent	Vincenz Homeowners' Association	Counsel	Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

VHA CC&R Article 10 § 10.11.1

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R Article 10, Section 10.11.1 regarding parking enforcement and waiver

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Violation, Parking, Waiver, Jurisdiction

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020043-REL Decision – 820839.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:53 (95.4 KB)