Tag Archives: Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Michael D. Ludden vs Mountain Gate Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-09-23
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael D. Ludden Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Gate Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1, Definitions, Area of Association Responsibility

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, concluding that the HOA CC&Rs mandate that the Association is responsible for replacing individual homeowners' roofs, if needed, primarily by interpreting the contractual term 'repair' to encompass 'replacement,' and noting that the roof is explicitly included under the HOA's maintenance and repair duties while items solely the owner's responsibility (windows, doors, interior plumbing) are specifically excluded from Areas of Association Responsibility.

Key Issues & Findings

Areas of Association Responsibility – Association responsibility for roof replacement by the association not clearly specified as to whether or not it’s an association or homeowner responsibility.

Petitioner sought clarification on whether the HOA's CC&Rs mandate roof replacement as part of 'Areas of Association Responsibility.' The ALJ concluded that the term 'repair' includes 'replacement,' and based on the CC&Rs language regarding maintenance and repair of the roof and the specific exclusion of windows and doors, the HOA is responsible for roof replacement if needed.

Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • CC&Rs Article 1
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Merriam-Webster dictionary

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Responsibility, Roof Replacement, CC&R Interpretation, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • CC&Rs Article 1
  • CC&Rs Article 5.18
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H051-REL Decision – 1323178.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:58 (68.2 KB)

25F-H051-REL Decision – 1328240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:04 (71.7 KB)

25F-H051-REL Decision – 1353423.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:09 (167.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H051-REL


Briefing Document: Ludden v. Mountain Gate Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the legal dispute between petitioner Michael D. Ludden and the Mountain Gate Homeowners Association (HOA) concerning the responsibility for roof replacement. On September 23, 2025, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings issued a final decision, ruling conclusively in favor of the petitioner.

The central finding is that the Mountain Gate HOA is financially responsible for the full replacement of homeowner roofs when necessary, in addition to its acknowledged duties of maintenance and repair. The ruling was based on a close interpretation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The ALJ determined that the CC&Rs’ definition of an “Improvement” (which includes any building or structure) combined with the Association’s explicit obligation to “maintain, repair and replace” such improvements, established the HOA’s liability for roof replacement.

The dispute arose from ambiguous language within the CC&Rs, which was compounded by conflicting verbal and written promises made by both the original and subsequent developers during home sales. The HOA argued that financial impracticality and a 2010 amendment requiring individual homeowner insurance shifted replacement liability to the owners. However, the ALJ’s decision rejected these arguments, finding the language of the governing documents to be controlling. As a direct result of the ruling, the Mountain Gate HOA must reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee and is legally bound to comply with this interpretation of its responsibilities moving forward.

Case Overview

Legal Proceedings

Case Name

In the Matter of: Michael D. Ludden, Petitioner, v. Mountain Gate Homeowners Association, Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H051-REL

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Nicole Robinson, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

September 3, 2025

Decision Date

September 23, 2025

Parties Involved

Title/Position

Petitioner

Michael D. Ludden

Homeowner and HOA President

Petitioner’s Witness

Brenda Anderson

HOA Secretary Treasurer

Respondent Representative

James “Jim” Pieper

HOA Board Member at Large

Respondent’s Witness

Pablo Martinez

HOA Director at Large

Central Issue

The core of the dispute was the interpretation of the Mountain Gate HOA’s CC&Rs to determine whether the Association is financially responsible for the full replacement of homeowner roofs at the end of their service life, or if its obligation is limited solely to maintenance and repair.

Background and Community History

The dispute is rooted in the development history of the Mountain Gate community, which consists of 42 townhome units in Lakeside, Arizona.

• 2006: The community is established and the association is incorporated as a condominium association.

• 2007: Construction begins on the first 12 units under the original developer.

• 2010: The development is re-platted from condominiums to townhomes, becoming a planned community. The CC&Rs are amended (Article 5.18) to require individual owners to obtain comprehensive insurance for the full replacement cost of their dwelling unit.

• c. 2014: The original developer goes bankrupt. Petitioner Michael Ludden purchases his unit from the developer’s sales agent, Gary Laframboise, who verbally stated that roof maintenance and replacement were the HOA’s responsibility.

• 2016: A new developer, Maebee Mountaingate LLC, purchases the remaining lots and resumes construction.

• 2018: The new developer utilizes sales brochures that explicitly promise roof replacement coverage. One document states, “Roofs last 20 years, replacement can cost $9500. In Mountain Gate part of your homeowner’s dues will be there to replace your roof if it is needed.”

• 2021: The new developer commissions a reserve study which includes line items for roof replacement.

• July 2022: With all 42 units completed, control of the HOA is transitioned from the developer to the homeowners. The Association’s reserve fund has a zero balance at the time of turnover.

• 2024: A homeowner demands the HOA replace his roof, prompting the board to seek a legal opinion and bringing the ambiguity in the CC&Rs to the forefront.

• February 28, 2025: Michael Ludden files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate to seek a formal ruling on the matter.

• September 3, 2025: An evidentiary hearing is conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Arguments Presented at Hearing

Petitioner’s Position (Michael D. Ludden)

The petitioner argued that the HOA is, and has always been represented as being, responsible for roof replacement.

• Governing Documents (CC&Rs): The primary argument centered on Article 1 of the CC&Rs. It defines “Improvements” as “any building, wall or structure” and states the Association “is obligated to maintain, repair and replace” these improvements. The petitioner asserted that a dwelling unit is an “Improvement,” and therefore its roof is subject to replacement by the HOA.

• Developer Representations: Evidence was presented showing consistent promises from both developers.

◦ A text message from the original developer’s agent, Gary Laframboise, dated October 8, 2024, confirmed, “roof maintenance and replacement is HOA responsibility.”

◦ Sales brochures from the second developer, dated 2018, were used to attract buyers with the explicit promise that HOA dues would cover roof replacement.

• Practical Concerns: It was argued that HOA control over replacement is necessary to maintain aesthetic uniformity and structural standards across the community, preventing homeowners from using substandard materials or unapproved colors (a “purple shingle” scenario was cited).

Respondent’s Position (Mountain Gate HOA)

The respondent, represented by board members, argued that roof replacement is the financial responsibility of the individual homeowner.

• Governing Documents (CC&Rs): The respondent focused on a more specific clause within Article 1 that states the Areas of Association Responsibility “shall include the maintenance and repair of: all exterior walls and the roof of any Dwelling Unit.” They contended that the absence of the word “replace” in this specific clause meant the duty did not exist, superseding the more general language.

• Shift in Liability (2010 Amendment): A key argument was that the 2010 re-platting of the community from condominiums to townhomes fundamentally shifted liability. The accompanying amendment requiring owners to carry their own insurance for the “full replacement cost of the Dwelling Unit” was presented as evidence that the replacement responsibility was transferred to the homeowner and their insurer.

• Financial Impracticality: The board stressed the severe financial burden. With annual dues already at $3,318 with no amenities (e.g., pool, clubhouse), adding the cost of roof replacement would require a further increase estimated at $2,000 to $4,000 per year, which would negatively impact property values and make homes difficult to sell.

• Extraneous Documents: The respondent’s position was that sales brochures and verbal promises are not legally binding and cannot override the language of the recorded CC&Rs.

Final Decision and Legal Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petitioner’s request, finding that the HOA is responsible for replacing homeowner roofs when necessary.

Outcome: PETITION GRANTED.

Judge’s Rationale

The decision was based primarily on an interpretation of the plain language of the CC&Rs.

1. Controlling Language of the CC&Rs: The judge found the broader definition in Article 1 to be controlling. Because an “Improvement” is defined as a “building,” and the Association is obligated to “maintain, repair and replace” such Improvements, the responsibility for roof replacement was established.

2. Definition of “Repair”: The judge cited the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “repair” as “to restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken.” From this, she concluded that “a repair could come through replacement,” further blurring the distinction the respondent tried to make.

3. The Window Hypothetical: The judge used a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the legal reasoning. The CC&Rs state that owners are solely responsible for the “maintenance and repair” of their windows. If a window needed to be replaced, the responsibility would clearly fall on the owner, even though the word “replace” is absent. The judge reasoned the inverse is true for the roof: since the roof is explicitly listed as an Area of Association Responsibility, that responsibility logically includes replacement when a simple repair is insufficient.

4. Rejection of Respondent’s Arguments: The judge determined that the 2010 amendment requiring individual homeowner insurance “still does not relieve the HOA from repairing and maintaining the roof” and, by extension, replacing it under its CC&R-defined duties. The developer’s promises were noted as supportive but were not the primary basis for the decision.

Direct Orders Issued

Based on the findings, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be GRANTED.

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.

3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents as interpreted in the decision.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael D. Ludden (petitioner)
    Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
    HOA President and Property Owner
  • Brenda Anderson (witness)
    Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
    HOA Secretary-Treasurer

Respondent Side

  • James Pieper (respondent)
    Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
    HOA Director-at-Large
  • Pablo Martinez (witness)
    Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
    HOA Director-at-Large
  • Fzen (board member)
    Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
    Newest board member, observed hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Miranda (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Mentioned by Petitioner regarding document submission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission

Other Participants

  • Gary Laframboise (former developer agent)
    Original Developer
    Provided external statements cited in hearing
  • Karen Johnson (sales agent)
    Navy Construction/Homes Smart
    Represented developer Maebee Mountaingate LLC

Marilyn J Fogelsong vs Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1336348.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:33 (157.7 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1348020.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:37 (43.9 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1380164.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:41 (51.8 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384549.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:45 (49.0 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384804.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:50 (7.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H050-REL


Briefing Document: Fogelsong vs. Park Townhouses Homeowners Association (Docket No. 25F-H050-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the legal dispute between Marilyn J. Fogelsong (“Petitioner”) and the Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

The Petitioner, a co-owner of a unit in the eight-unit Park Townhouses community, filed a petition on or about March 31, 2025, alleging four distinct violations by the HOA board. These allegations included failure to disclose a conflict of interest in hiring an HOA manager, violating the community’s CC&Rs by pursuing projects for individual units, violating state open meeting laws, and failing to act in good faith as fiduciaries.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted on July 16, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Nicole Robinson. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing, and the Petitioner provided sole testimony.

On August 5, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for three of the four issues. The fourth issue was dismissed on the grounds that the OAH lacked the jurisdiction to enforce the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 10-830). A subsequent request for a rehearing filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the OAH as it was submitted to the incorrect office after the OAH’s jurisdiction had ended.

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H050-REL

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Nicole Robinson

Petitioner

Marilyn J. Fogelsong

Respondent

Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc.

Subject Property

Park Townhouses, an 8-unit planned community in Tucson, AZ

Petition Filed

On or about March 31, 2025

Hearing Date

July 16, 2025

Decision Issued

August 5, 2025

Final Outcome

Petition DENIED

The Parties and Property

• Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong: A partial owner of unit 2467 East 1st Street since April 2021, co-owning with her 39-year-old son who resides in the unit. Fogelsong previously served as the HOA board president for three years, with her last term ending in September 2024.

• Respondent Park Townhouses HOA: A planned community association for an eight-unit townhouse development in Tucson, Arizona. Each unit owner is responsible for their own structure and lot.

• The Property: The community consists of two buildings, each with four townhouses facing each other across a 20-foot wide common driveway.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony

During the July 16, 2025 hearing, Ms. Fogelsong, representing herself, presented testimony on the four issues outlined in her petition. The HOA did not appear.

Issue #1: Conflict of Interest (A.R.S. § 33-1811)

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to disclose conflicts of interest when hiring Tucson Realty & Trust Company (TRT) as the HOA property manager, rendering the contract void.

• Core Allegation: On February 17, 2025, the HOA board presented only one proposal—from TRT—and asked homeowners to approve the hire without disclosing pertinent conflicts.

• Identified Conflicts:

◦ TRT’s property management division manages two units within the community (2463 and 2467) owned by then-current board members Mark Schlang (Treasurer) and Gerald Schwarzenb[erger] (Secretary).

◦ Both the property management and HOA management divisions of TRT operate under the same broker, Deborah Garcia.

• History of Misconduct by TRT: The Petitioner testified to a history of issues with TRT that she believed constituted conflicts of interest:

◦ TRT collected parking violation fines from a tenant but failed to remit them to the HOA.

◦ TRT failed to provide tenant contact information to the HOA upon request, which is a violation of Arizona law.

◦ TRT’s attorney, BL Edmonson, sent a “cease and desist” letter to Fogelsong and then invoiced the HOA for the legal fees, which Fogelsong, as president at the time, rejected. The invoice was resubmitted to the HOA 18 months later.

Issue #2: CC&R Violation (Paragraph 19)

The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Paragraph 19 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by directing the HOA manager to pursue an “unsanctioned project for individual townhouses.”

• Core Allegation: The HOA manager (TRT) met with a painting company on March 31, 2025, to solicit bids for painting the exteriors of all townhouses. The Petitioner argued this action is beyond the scope of the HOA’s authority, which is limited to maintaining common areas.

• Supporting Evidence:

◦ The Petitioner cited a legal opinion she obtained from an HOA attorney, Jason Smith, which concluded that the HOA does not have the right to conduct repairs on individual units.

◦ She referenced a past incident where another homeowner, David Zinfeld, paid an assessment for awning wood repair “under protest” because the funds were being used for an individual unit, not a common area.

Issue #3: Open Meeting Law Violations (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The Petitioner claimed the board violated Arizona’s open meeting laws through multiple actions.

• Secret Meeting: The board held a private meeting to approve TRT as the manager before the February 17, 2025, homeowners meeting where the vote occurred. No notice of this prior board meeting was given to homeowners.

• Failure to Provide Information: The Petitioner made multiple requests for documents that were ignored. She requested management proposals on February 4, 2025, and later requested minutes, financial statements, and property management agreements, none of which were provided.

• Disregarded Standing: In its written response to the petition, the HOA claimed the Petitioner lacked “sufficient standing” due to her “limited ownership stake,” a position the Petitioner refutes based on her recorded deed.

Issue #4: Failure to Act in Good Faith (A.R.S. § 10-830A)

The Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform its duties with the care an “ordinarily prudent person” would exercise.

• Dereliction of Duties:

◦ The board, elected in September 2024, waited 10 weeks to meet and elect officers.

◦ The board failed to take control of the HOA bank account until March 2025, approximately six months into its one-year term.

◦ It failed to schedule a required annual backflow test for the irrigation system, resulting in the water being shut off.

◦ It failed to replace a dead tree that was on the agenda for replacement in fall 2024.

◦ It failed to check the HOA’s post office box, leading to the return of dues checks from homeowners.

◦ It did not abate new graffiti for six weeks, at which point the Petitioner did so herself after receiving permission.

Respondent’s Position

Although the HOA was not present at the hearing, its positions were articulated in a five-page written response submitted to the Department of Real Estate on May 8, 2025, and were referenced during the hearing.

• Denial of Claims: The Respondent denied all of the Petitioner’s claims.

• Challenge to Standing: The HOA’s formal position was that Ms. Fogelsong lacked sufficient standing due to her “limited ownership stake.”

• Allegation of Ulterior Motive: The Respondent accused the Petitioner of a “calculated and systematic attempt to devalue the property and agitate the owners to possibly sell their respective units to Miss Fogong [sic] and her son at a below market value.” They claimed several owners could testify to her “repeated suggestions and solicitations to sell.”

• Claim of Non-cooperation: The HOA stated that the Petitioner had “not been fully cooperative in the transition process” regarding missing documentation after her term as president ended.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

On August 5, 2025, ALJ Nicole Robinson issued a decision denying the petition. The core finding was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving the violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Findings on Each Issue

• Issue #1 (Conflict of Interest): No Violation Found. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the hiring of TRT constituted a conflict of interest as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1811. The evidence showed that a prior management company (McElwain) also managed individual units while serving as the HOA manager, suggesting this was an established practice. The statute specifically addresses benefits to board members or their families, which was not sufficiently established by the evidence presented.

• Issue #2 (CC&R Violation): No Violation Found. The decision stated that the Petitioner failed to submit the entirety of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, providing only “snippets.” Without the complete governing documents, the tribunal could not definitively determine the scope of the HOA’s authority regarding projects on individual units. Furthermore, the evidence only showed that a bid was solicited for painting; there was no evidence that work was actually performed.

• Issue #3 (Open Meeting Law): No Violation Found. The ALJ found that the February 17, 2025, meeting was properly noticed via email. Regarding a March 5, 2025, email the Petitioner did not receive, the evidence showed her co-owner son did receive it, meaning the unit was properly notified. A December 2024 meeting was deemed emergent, for which the statute does not require prior notice.

• Issue #4 (Failure to Act in Good Faith): No Jurisdiction. The ALJ concluded that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction to enforce A.R.S. § 10-830. The OAH’s authority is limited by statute to adjudicating violations of Title 33 (Planned Communities and Condominiums) and community documents, not Title 10 (Corporations and Associations).

Post-Decision Events

• On August 26, 2025, the Petitioner filed a request for a rehearing.

• On September 8, 2025, the OAH issued a Minute Entry stating that the request would not be considered because it was “inappropriately sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings.”

• The OAH’s jurisdiction over the matter had concluded with the August 5 decision. The Petitioner was advised to address any further requests to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marilyn J. Fogelsong (petitioner)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Represented herself; former HOA President/Treasurer
  • Levi Benjamin Lazarus (co-owner/son of petitioner)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Co-owner of petitioner's unit
  • Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
    Consulted by petitioner regarding CC&R interpretation for unit repairs

Respondent Side

  • Gerald Schwarzenb (board member/Secretary)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
  • Mark Schlang (board member/Treasurer/architect)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
  • Deborah Garcia (broker/HOA manager)
    TRT Property Management
    Broker of TRT; homeowners voted to accept her as HOA manager
  • Andrew Viscara (HOA property manager)
    TRT Property Management
    TRT representative designated for Park Townhouses HOA management
  • Mary Lord Lr (property manager)
    TRT Property Management
    Property manager for unit 2465
  • B.L. Edmonson (attorney)
    TRT Property Management
    Wrote cease and desist letter to petitioner; billed HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • David Zinfeld (homeowner/former Treasurer)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Property owner; prior treasurer during self-managed period; paid assessment under protest
  • Ray Floyd (former board member)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Served on board with petitioner during self-managed period
  • Sasha Flores (bank account signer)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Wife of Rick Flores; co-signer on HOA bank account
  • Rick Flores (homeowner/delegate)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Delegated authority to wife Sasha Flores for bank account deeds

Marilyn J Fogelsong

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H035-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jesse Freeman Counsel —
Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article II, Section 8, as amended October 18, 2000

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the validity or implementation of the purported Bylaws amendment, and the language of the amendment itself was found not to be compulsory in requiring a subsequent meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to hold a second and subsequent meeting of the membership with a diminished quorum.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to hold a second meeting with a diminished 15% quorum after failing to meet the initial 25% quorum at the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, despite a motion and second being made to adjourn and reset the meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was 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. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
  • 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. § 41-1092.09
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Annual Meeting, Burden of Proof, Invalid Document, Continuance
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. § 33-1802(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:04 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:08 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:11 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:13 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:15 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:19 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:23 (146.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H035-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H035-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of Jesse Freeman, PETITIONER, vs. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association, RESPONDENT.”,
“decision_date”: “2024-08-09”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Jesse Freeman”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Member”,
“notes”: “Spelling varies as ‘Jesse Freemen’ in some sources; also served as Treasurer on the Board 2017-2018.”
},
{
“name”: “Augustus H. Shaw IV”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Shaw & Lines, LLC”,
“notes”: “Counsel for Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association.”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Brandon David Moore”,
“role”: “senior community manager/witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Brown Property Management”,
“notes”: “Senior Community Manager for Respondent Millett Ranch HOA, testified as a witness.”
},
{
“name”: “Christopher Redden”,
“role”: “Board President/witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association”,
“notes”: “Former Board President (9 years) and Board Member (13-14 years), testified as a witness.”
},
{
“name”: “Mark Saul”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association”,
“notes”: “Identified by Petitioner as the association’s attorney who abruptly ended the January 16, 2024 meeting.”
},
{
“name”: “Nicholas Belisi”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Potential witness for Petitioner; seconded the motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting.”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Rebecca Cook-Klaus”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observed the hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Millie Lton”,
“role”: “unknown”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Petitioner received a copy of the bylaws amendment from this person in May 2023.”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff (Recipient)”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff (Recipient)”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.”
},
{
“name”: “labril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff (Recipient)”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.”
},
{
“name”: “mneat”,
“role”: “ADRE staff (Recipient)”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.”
},
{
“name”: “akowaleski”,
“role”: “ADRE staff (Recipient)”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.”
},
{
“name”: “gosborn”,
“role”: “ADRE staff (Recipient)”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.”
},
{
“name”: “OAH Staff”,
“role”: “OAH Staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents/Final Order.”
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jesse Freeman (petitioner)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Member
    Spelling varies as 'Jesse Freemen' in some sources; also served as Treasurer on the Board 2017-2018.
  • Nicholas Belisi (witness)
    Potential witness for Petitioner; seconded the motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting.

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw IV (HOA attorney)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Counsel for Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association.
  • Brandon David Moore (senior community manager/witness)
    Brown Property Management
    Senior Community Manager for Respondent Millett Ranch HOA, testified as a witness.
  • Christopher Redden (Board President/witness)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
    Former Board President (9 years) and Board Member (13-14 years), testified as a witness.
  • Mark Saul (HOA attorney)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
    Identified by Petitioner as the association's attorney who abruptly ended the January 16, 2024 meeting.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • djones (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • labril (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • mneat (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • akowaleski (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • gosborn (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • OAH Staff (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Transmitted documents/Final Order.

Other Participants

  • Rebecca Cook-Klaus (observer)
    Observed the hearing.
  • Millie Lton (unknown)
    Petitioner received a copy of the bylaws amendment from this person in May 2023.

VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association v. Duane S & Mary L Eitel

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H003-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-02-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association Counsel Anthony Rossetti, Esq.
Respondent Duane Eitel & Mary Eitel Counsel Kevin Harper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article VII, sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, 7.29, and 7.31

Outcome Summary

Petitioner sustained its burden of proof establishing that Respondents violated CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 by operating a cat rescue business (VKNR) from their residence, which involved unauthorized commercial activity, excessive non-pet animals, and creating a nuisance. Violation of 7.29 was not established. The petition was granted.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized business out of their home and housing dozens of cats in excess of a reasonable number of household pets, creating a nuisance.

Respondents operated a nonprofit cat rescue (VKNR) from their single-family residence, housing 50+ cats in a 3-car garage, which constituted an unauthorized commercial use, exceeded a reasonable number of pets, and created traffic and waste nuisances.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs section 7.2
  • CC&Rs section 7.3
  • CC&Rs section 7.25
  • CC&Rs section 7.26
  • CC&Rs section 7.28
  • CC&Rs section 7.31

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Home Business, Pets/Animals, Nuisance, CC&Rs, Enforcement, HOA
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.
  • 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, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1094853.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:39 (51.0 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1113338.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:44 (49.4 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1125372.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:48 (65.5 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1147484.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:51 (184.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H003-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H003-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association, Petitioner, vs. Duane Eitel & Mary Eitel, Respondents.”,
“decision_date”: “February 22, 2024”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Duane Eitel”,
“role”: “respondent, witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member”,
“notes”: “Referred to as Duane S Eitel in earlier documents; DE in the decision.”
},
{
“name”: “Mary Eitel”,
“role”: “respondent”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member, CEO/Director of Valley Kitten Nursery & Rescue Inc.”,
“notes”: “Referred to as Mary L Eitel in earlier documents.”
},
{
“name”: “Anthony Rossetti”,
“role”: “petitioner attorney, property manager”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Rossetti Management & Realty Services”,
“notes”: “Represented Petitioner and owned the newly hired management company.”
},
{
“name”: “Kevin Harper”,
“role”: “respondent attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Harper Law, PLC”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Douglas Karolak”,
“role”: “witness, homeowner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member”,
“notes”: “Testified on behalf of Petitioner.”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “labril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Scott Lenderman”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “HOA management administrator (prior to Rossetti)”,
“notes”: “Mentioned as the first HOA management administrator.”
},
{
“name”: “Nicole Elliot”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Norris Management”,
“notes”: “Former HOA management committee/manager who issued warning letters.”
},
{
“name”: “Christopher Sinco”,
“role”: “code compliance officer”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Pinal County Animal Control”,
“notes”: “Involved in the 2017/2018 county inspection.”
},
{
“name”: “CD Mai”,
“role”: “homeowner/neighbor”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member”,
“notes”: “Mentioned by Karolak as a vocal opponent/adjacent neighbor to the Eitels.”
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anthony Rossetti (petitioner attorney, property manager)
    Rossetti Management & Realty Services
    Represented Petitioner and owned the newly hired management company.
  • Douglas Karolak (witness, homeowner)
    VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member
    Testified on behalf of Petitioner.
  • Nicole Elliot (property manager)
    Norris Management
    Former HOA management committee/manager who issued warning letters.
  • CD Mai (homeowner/neighbor)
    VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member
    Mentioned by Karolak as a vocal opponent/adjacent neighbor to the Eitels.

Respondent Side

  • Duane Eitel (respondent, witness)
    VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member
    Referred to as Duane S Eitel in earlier documents; DE in the decision.
  • Mary Eitel (respondent)
    VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member, CEO/Director of Valley Kitten Nursery & Rescue Inc.
    Referred to as Mary L Eitel in earlier documents.
  • Kevin Harper (respondent attorney)
    Harper Law, PLC

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Christopher Sinco (code compliance officer)
    Pinal County Animal Control
    Involved in the 2017/2018 county inspection.

Other Participants

  • Scott Lenderman (property manager)
    HOA management administrator (prior to Rossetti)
    Mentioned as the first HOA management administrator.

Thomas P Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-09
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas P. Hommrich Counsel —
Respondent The Lakewood Community Association Counsel Quinten Cupps, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 2.1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 by adopting the Residential Parking Policy. The Policy was deemed a valid clarification authorized by existing CC&R provisions (4.2(t) and 5.3).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the governing documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs Section 2.1 regarding adoption of Residential Parking Policy

Petitioner alleged that the Association's adoption of the Residential Parking Policy violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 because the policy used the unauthorized term 'Rules and Regulations' rather than 'restrictions,' thereby attempting to amend the CC&Rs without following the proper process, particularly concerning the use of government-owned property.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

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. § 32-2199.05
  • 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. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Parking Policy, Rules vs Restrictions, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
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.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1101544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:45 (47.0 KB)

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1111460.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:48 (102.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H009-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H009-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association”,
“decision_date”: “2023-11-09”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Thomas P. Hommrich”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Property owner, appeared on his own behalf”
},
{
“name”: “Quinten Cupps”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “VIal Fotheringham, LLP”,
“notes”: “Represented The Lakewood Community Association”
},
{
“name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: “Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and final decision”
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: “Administrative Law Judge who issued the October 12, 2023 Order”
},
{
“name”: “Sandra Smith”,
“role”: “community manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Lakewood Community Association”,
“notes”: “Witness who testified on behalf of Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission/contact”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission/contact”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission/contact”
},
{
“name”: “labril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission/contact”
},
{
“name”: “Moses Thompson”,
“role”: “Judge”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Judge cited in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium)”
},
{
“name”: “Brian Seatic”,
“role”: “party”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Party in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium) cited during the hearing”
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas P. Hommrich (petitioner)
    Property owner, appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Quinten Cupps (HOA attorney)
    VIal Fotheringham, LLP
    Represented The Lakewood Community Association
  • Sandra Smith (community manager)
    Lakewood Community Association
    Witness who testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and final decision
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who issued the October 12, 2023 Order
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Moses Thompson (Judge)
    Judge cited in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium)

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • Brian Seatic (party)
    Party in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium) cited during the hearing

Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H001-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kristeen L. Herron Counsel —
Respondent The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 4.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&Rs Article 4.4. Petitioner's preference for warmer water did not establish discrimination or a rule violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent) is in violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 for “turning off the lap pool heater … [f]or approximately one month” which Petitioner further alleges constitutes discrimination against senior residents.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by turning off the lap pool heater around mid-April 2023, making the temperature too cold for her use and constituting discrimination against senior residents who rely on the pool for exercise. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove a violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 or age-based discrimination.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article 4.4
  • The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7(e)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Pool Heating, Discrimination Claim, Common Area Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-106
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 4.4
  • CC&Rs 8.2(c)(12)
  • The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1089588.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:27 (52.0 KB)

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1102316.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:31 (136.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H001-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H001-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of Kristeen L. Herron, Petitioner. v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association, Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “October 16, 2023”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Kristeen L. Herron”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”,
“notes”: “Property owner and member of the Association”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”
},
{
“name”: “Lydia Linsmeier”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen”
},
{
“name”: “Eden Cohen”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen”
},
{
“name”: “Karen Ellis”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”,
“notes”: “Witness for Petitioner; property owner/member”
},
{
“name”: “April Lord”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “City Property Management”,
“notes”: “Vice President of Management Services”
},
{
“name”: “Christiano Monteiro”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”,
“notes”: “Board President; Testified as witness for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”
},
{
“name”: “LouAnne Schmidt”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Potential witness for Petitioner, not permitted to testify”
},
{
“name”: “John Deck”,
“role”: “maintenance technician”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”,
“notes”: “Director of Maintenance”
},
{
“name”: “Mark”,
“role”: “board member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”,
“notes”: “Board member mentioned making a motion”
},
{
“name”: “Heather Tiveres”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “City Property Management”,
“notes”: “Former managing agent employee whose name was clarified in testimony”
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kristeen L. Herron (petitioner)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Property owner and member of the Association
  • Karen Ellis (witness)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Witness for Petitioner; property owner/member
  • LouAnne Schmidt (observer)
    Potential witness for Petitioner, not permitted to testify

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen
  • Eden Cohen (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen
  • April Lord (witness)
    City Property Management
    Vice President of Management Services
  • Christiano Monteiro (board member)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Board President; Testified as witness for Respondent
  • John Deck (maintenance technician)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Director of Maintenance
  • Mark (board member)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Board member mentioned making a motion
  • Heather Tiveres (property manager)
    City Property Management
    Former managing agent employee whose name was clarified in testimony

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Rosalie Lynne Emmons v. Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H055-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rosalie Lynne Emmons Counsel —
Respondent Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Michael S. McLeran

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association engaged in selective enforcement regarding the shed constructed without prior approval, which violated the CC&Rs and design guidelines.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of selective enforcement. She admitted her shed was built without prior approval, was taller than the fence line, and was visible from the street, all of which violated the CC&Rs. The evidence presented by the Respondent showed consistent enforcement actions regarding similar violations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged selective, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement of CC&Rs regarding shed construction and prior approval.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced its shed policy against her, claiming that her denial for a shed built without prior approval and exceeding the fence height should be excused because other, similar non-compliant sheds existed in the community and were not consistently cited.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
  • CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, Selective Enforcement, Shed, Design Guidelines, CC&Rs, Prior Approval
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.
  • CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1062778.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:44 (44.1 KB)

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1086088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:46 (110.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 23F-H055-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “23F-H055-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association”,
“decision_date”: “2023-08-22”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Rosalie Lynne Emmons”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Rovey Farm Estates property owner; appeared on her own behalf [1-4]”
},
{
“name”: “Michael S. McLeran”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC”,
“notes”: “Appeared on behalf of Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association [1, 3, 5]”
},
{
“name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Administrative Law Judge [1, 3, 6]”
},
{
“name”: “Matt Johnson”,
“role”: “community manager/witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Envision Community Management”,
“notes”: “Community Manager for Rovey Farm Estate; Appeared as a witness for the Association [1, 3, 7]”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner [6, 8]”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Recipient of decision transmission [6, 8]”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Recipient of decision transmission [6, 8]”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Recipient of decision transmission [6, 8]”
},
{
“name”: “labril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Recipient of decision transmission [6, 8]”
},
{
“name”: “Mark Schmidt”,
“role”: “HOA staff”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Envision Community Management”,
“notes”: “Completed exhibit list (Exhibit 7) used by Respondent [9, 10]”
},
{
“name”: “Carrie Schmidt”,
“role”: “compliance officer”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Envision Community Management”,
“notes”: “Compliance inspector responsible for citing violations [11]”
},
{
“name”: “Jose Garcia”,
“role”: “homeowner/applicant”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied [12, 13]”
},
{
“name”: “Gilbert Bar”,
“role”: “homeowner/applicant”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied [12, 13]”
},
{
“name”: “Jane Kim”,
“role”: “homeowner/applicant”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application (with MJ Kim) was denied [13, 14]”
},
{
“name”: “MJ Kim”,
“role”: “homeowner/applicant”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application (with Jane Kim) was denied [13, 14]”
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rosalie Lynne Emmons (petitioner)
    Rovey Farm Estates property owner; appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
    Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
    Appeared on behalf of Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
  • Matt Johnson (community manager/witness)
    Envision Community Management
    Community Manager for Rovey Farm Estate; Appeared as a witness for the Association
  • Mark Schmidt (HOA staff)
    Envision Community Management
    Completed exhibit list (Exhibit 7) used by Respondent
  • Carrie Schmidt (compliance officer)
    Envision Community Management
    Compliance inspector responsible for citing violations

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • Jose Garcia (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied
  • Gilbert Bar (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied
  • Jane Kim (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application (with MJ Kim) was denied
  • MJ Kim (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application (with Jane Kim) was denied

Harry G. Turner v. MountainGate Home Owners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Harry G. Turner Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Harry G. Turner failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs by planning drainage construction in Tract H.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to reconcile conflicting designations of Tract H in the plat map (Preserved/Active Open Space vs. Drainage), thus failing to prove that the drainage ditch constituted a prohibited change of use.

Key Issues & Findings

Required membership vote for common area use change (Tract H drainage ditch)

Petitioner alleged the HOA (Respondent) violated CC&Rs Article 10 Section 4 by planning to dig a drainage ditch in Tract H, arguing this was a change of use requiring a 2/3rds membership vote. Respondent argued Tract H was already designated for drainage in the 'Conveyance and Dedication' portion of the plat map, negating the need for a vote.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • 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, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Drainage, Common Area, Change of Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community, Plat Map
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • 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, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1KAeIyRL8kVCBXnkJx4Gy7

Decision Documents

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1055488.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:36 (49.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1057334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:40 (43.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1083773.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:42 (105.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 23F-H045-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H045-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Harry G. Turner, Petitioner v Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “August 14, 2023”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “individuals”: [ { “name”: “Harry G. Turner”, “role”: “petitioner”, “side”: “petitioner”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf1” }, { “name”: “Michael Luden”, “role”: “president/representative”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: “Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.”, “notes”: “Appeared on behalf of Respondent1. Identified as President of the Homeowners Association2” }, { “name”: “Brenda Anderson”, “role”: “witness/secretary”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: “Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.”, “notes”: “Witness for Respondent1; Secretary of Mountain Gate Homeowners Association23” }, { “name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “role”: “ALJ”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “OAH”, “notes”: “Administrative Law Judge4” }, { “name”: “Susan Nicolson”, “role”: “Commissioner”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”, “notes”: “Listed in transmission list5” }, { “name”: “AHansen”, “role”: “ADRE staff”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”, “notes”: “Listed in transmission list5” }, { “name”: “vnunez”, “role”: “ADRE staff”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”, “notes”: “Listed in transmission list5” }, { “name”: “djones”, “role”: “ADRE staff”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”, “notes”: “Listed in transmission list5” }, { “name”: “labril”, “role”: “ADRE staff”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”, “notes”: “Listed in transmission list5” }, { “name”: “Kelly Callahan”, “role”: “HOA attorney”, “side”: “respondent”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “HOA’s attorney who wrote an email regarding the drainage ditch proposal6” }, { “name”: “Ken Anderson”, “role”: “community member”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Mentioned as being present when a document was allegedly falsified6” }, { “name”: “Jeremiah Lloyd”, “role”: “Community Development Director”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “Pinetop Lakeside”, “notes”: “Community Development Director for Pinetop Lakeside7” }, { “name”: “Bill Best”, “role”: “County Engineer”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “Navajo County”, “notes”: “Navajo County Engineer7” }, { “name”: “Emory Ellsworth”, “role”: “engineer”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “Painted Sky Engineering and Surveying”, “notes”: “Engineer consulted by Petitioner7” }, { “name”: “John Murphy”, “role”: “engineer”, “side”: “neutral”, “affiliation”: “Murphy Engineering Group”, “notes”: “Engineer whose company provided original certified plans7” }, { “name”: “Gary Lao”, “role”: “developer”, “side”: “unknown”, “affiliation”: null, “notes”: “Original developer8” } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Harry G. Turner (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Michael Luden (president/representative)
    Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Identified as President of the Homeowners Association
  • Brenda Anderson (witness/secretary)
    Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
    Witness for Respondent; Secretary of Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
  • Kelly Callahan (HOA attorney)
    HOA's attorney who wrote an email regarding the drainage ditch proposal

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • Jeremiah Lloyd (Community Development Director)
    Pinetop Lakeside
    Community Development Director for Pinetop Lakeside
  • Bill Best (County Engineer)
    Navajo County
    Navajo County Engineer
  • Emory Ellsworth (engineer)
    Painted Sky Engineering and Surveying
    Engineer consulted by Petitioner
  • John Murphy (engineer)
    Murphy Engineering Group
    Engineer whose company provided original certified plans

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • Ken Anderson (community member)
    Mentioned as being present when a document was allegedly falsified
  • Gary Lao (developer)
    Original developer

Brenda Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H046-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-11
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brenda Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Michael S. McLeran, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Appendix B, Section 5

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the HOA violated the community documents. The ALJ found that forcing enforcement of a discretionary restriction after decades of inaction would be unreasonable and that the matter was essentially a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence; enforcement would be an unreasonable exercise of discretion due to long-standing inaction; and there was no legal avenue for the HOA to compel removal of the private property (trees).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce Prohibited Plant List (Oleanders and Palm Trees exceeding 10 feet)

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Appendix B, Section 5 of the CC&Rs by failing to enforce the Prohibited Plant List and require her rear neighbors to remove oleander and palm trees that exceeded height guidelines and caused nuisance and damage.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed with prejudice.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner dispute, prohibited plants, HOA discretion, failure to enforce, neighbor dispute, CC&Rs, oleander, palm trees
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:49 (41.2 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049882.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:52 (47.2 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1055238.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:55 (50.0 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1057283.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:58 (50.3 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1058121.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:01 (52.9 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1059849.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:04 (52.5 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1072130.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:08 (49.8 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1082955.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:11 (155.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 23F-H046-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “23F-H046-REL”,
“case_title”: “In the Matter of Brenda Norman, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association, Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “2023-08-11”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Brenda Norman”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on her own behalf”
},
{
“name”: “Michael S. McLeran”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Childers Hanlon 7 Hudson, PLC”,
“notes”: “Counsel for Rancho Del Lago Community Association”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: “Administrative Law Judge presiding over the matter”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Spencer Broad”,
“role”: “witness, property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “HA managed solutions”,
“notes”: “Community Manager for Rancho Del Lago Community Association; also spelled Brod [1]”
},
{
“name”: “Zvena Norman”,
“role”: “potential witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “On standby as a potential witness for Petitioner”
},
{
“name”: “Cindy White”,
“role”: “neighbor”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Owner of the plants subject to the dispute”
},
{
“name”: “Ray White”,
“role”: “neighbor”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Owner of the plants subject to the dispute”
},
{
“name”: “David Norman”,
“role”: “associated party”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Petitioner’s husband; co-petitioner in prior litigation referenced during the hearing”
},
{
“name”: “Nathan Tennyson”,
“role”: “former HOA attorney”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Former in-house counsel referenced by Petitioner”
},
{
“name”: “Phil Brown”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Attorney referenced by Petitioner regarding a 2018 letter”
},
{
“name”: “Eric”,
“role”: “compliance manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “HOA management solutions”,
“notes”: “Compliance Manager since 2009; full last name withheld from the record”
},
{
“name”: “Judge Mahalski”,
“role”: “ALJ (prior case)”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: “Administrative Law Judge in 2019 litigation referenced during the hearing”
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brenda Norman (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Zvena Norman (potential witness)
    On standby as a potential witness for Petitioner
  • David Norman (associated party)
    Petitioner's husband; co-petitioner in prior litigation referenced during the hearing

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
    Childers Hanlon 7 Hudson, PLC
    Counsel for Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Spencer Broad (witness, property manager)
    HA managed solutions
    Community Manager for Rancho Del Lago Community Association; also spelled Brod
  • Phil Brown (HOA attorney)
    Attorney referenced by Petitioner regarding a 2018 letter
  • Eric (compliance manager)
    HOA management solutions
    Compliance Manager since 2009; full last name withheld from the record

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge presiding over the matter
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Judge Mahalski (ALJ (prior case))
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge in 2019 litigation referenced during the hearing

Other Participants

  • Cindy White (neighbor)
    Owner of the plants subject to the dispute
  • Ray White (neighbor)
    Owner of the plants subject to the dispute
  • Nathan Tennyson (former HOA attorney)
    Former in-house counsel referenced by Petitioner