Case Summary
| Case ID | 24F-H023-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2024-05-16 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Sondra J. Vanella |
| Outcome | total_loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Casas Arroyo Association, Inc. | Counsel | David Onuschak, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
Article II Section 1(c)
Outcome Summary
Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c). The cited provision was inapplicable because the security gate installation did not involve transferring common area to a public agency or increasing the density of residences (the clause was read conjunctively).
Why this result: CC&R Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable because the sentence regarding improvements and density was written in the conjunctive using the word “and,” meaning the improvement must both be placed upon the common area AND increase the density of residences, neither of which applied to the security gate installation.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&Rs regarding vote threshold for placing improvements on common area.
Petitioners alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c) by approving the installation of a security gate on the common area using a two-thirds standard of those who voted (resulting in 27 affirmative votes, 69-72% approval rate) when they asserted three quarters (3/4 or 30 votes out of 39 eligible lots) of eligible votes was required for an improvement on the common area.
Orders: Petitioners’ Petition is dismissed; no action is required of Respondent.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 32-2199
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
- CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
- CC&R Article IV Section 2