Case Summary
| Case ID | 24F-H031-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2024-12-09 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome | full |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $1,500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Keystone Owners Association | Counsel | Erica L. Mortenson |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Bernadette M. Bennett | Counsel | Thomas A. Walcott |
Alleged Violations
Mountain Park Association CC&Rs Art. IV, Sec. 2; Keystone CC&Rs Art. V, Sec. 5.19; Rules (35% Frontage Limit)
Outcome Summary
The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed. The Respondent (Homeowner) was found in violation of Governing Documents for installing an unapproved driveway extension that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the $1,500.00 filing fee and comply with all Governing Documents henceforth. No civil penalty was levied.
Why this result: Respondent failed to obtain prior written approval for the driveway alteration and failed to prove the affirmative defense of laches.
Key Issues & Findings
Unauthorized Driveway Extension Exceeding 35% of Total Yard Frontage Area
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by installing a driveway extension exceeding 35% of the total yard frontage area without prior written approval. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred and the Respondent failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches.
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $1,500.00 for the filing fee and comply henceforth with the Governing Documents.
Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_win
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803
- 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. § 32-2199.02
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
- Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
- Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
- Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
- Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
- Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803
- 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. § 32-2199.02
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
- Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
- Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
- Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
- Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
- Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)