Tag Archives: 2022

Kathy J Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222064-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-09-29
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kathy J. Green, MD Counsel —
Respondent Cross Creek Ranch Community Association Counsel Nick Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by improperly holding a closed executive session primarily focused on reviewing homeowner comments on design guidelines that did not meet the statutory exceptions for closure. The ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse the petitioner's filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of open meetings requirements regarding closed executive session.

The Respondent HOA held a closed executive session on June 9, 2022, noticed under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) (legal advice), to discuss approximately 72 homeowner comments on proposed design guideline revisions. The ALJ found that the meeting did not qualify under exceptions (A)(1) or (A)(2) as no legal advice was given and the discussion of most comments did not constitute pending or contemplated litigation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 33-1804(A)(1)
  • 33-1804(A)(2)
  • 33-1804(B)
  • 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meetings, Executive Session, Legal Advice, Contemplated Litigation, Design Guidelines
Additional Citations:

  • 33-1804
  • 33-1804(A)
  • 33-1804(A)(1)
  • 33-1804(A)(2)
  • 33-1804(F)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 1003060.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:46 (149.0 KB)

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 989940.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:46 (49.8 KB)

M&T Properties LLC v. Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222060-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner M&T Properties LLC Counsel Lucas Thomas, Owner
Respondent Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association Counsel David Rivandi, Director

Alleged Violations

Section 6.7 of the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium and of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Kivas Uno Condominium

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the singular issue raised: Respondent (HOA) was found to be in violation of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs for failing to retain a duly licensed property management agent at the time the petition was filed. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with the CC&Rs moving forward. No civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Professional Management

Respondent (HOA) acknowledged that as of the date the Petition was filed (June 6, 2022), it did not retain or maintain a Managing Agent who is duly licensed by the State of Arizona as a property manager, which violated Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and was directed to comply with the requirements of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCNR violation, Property Management, Filing Fee Refund, No Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222060-REL Decision – 997254.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:33 (87.5 KB)

Evin Abromowitz v. The Meadows Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222038-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Evin Abromowitz Counsel —
Respondent The Meadows Homeowners Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs, Section 3.5 and 3.6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the homeowner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs Sections 3.5 or 3.6 regarding its authority to enact or enforce the rules and regulations that were at issue.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated CC&Rs Section 3.5 or 3.6. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was authorized to enact rules relating to the operation of the association and to enforce them.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner claimed Respondent violated CC&Rs 3.5 and 3.6 regarding its power to adopt and enforce rules by applying rules allegedly unrelated to the operation of the association and/or failing to follow protocol.

Petitioner challenged the HOA's authority to enact (3.5) and enforce (3.6) specific rules, arguing they were not related to association operation (e.g., controlling off-site email communication or fining for vendor interaction) and that enforcement protocols were violated. The ALJ denied the petition, finding the HOA was authorized to enact and enforce rules related to the operation of the association, and Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is 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.
  • 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 rules and regulations, CC&Rs, Enforcement authority, Burden of Proof, Planned community association dispute
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. 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

22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 966844.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:04 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 969590.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:04 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 994145.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:04 (145.3 KB)

Anthony T Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony T Horn Counsel —
Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. Counsel Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) regarding the July 6, 2021 board meeting, and alternatively, any potential violation was cured by the proper notice and vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

Why this result: The ALJ concluded that the HOA properly notified members of the matter to be discussed at the July 6, 2021 meeting (tennis court upgrade/repair). Furthermore, any potential violation was cured by the explicit notice and second unanimous vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meetings/Notice/Ability to Speak (July 6, 2021 Board Meeting)

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804(F) because the July 6, 2021 agenda item 'Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair' did not adequately disclose the conversion of one tennis court into four pickleball courts. The ALJ found the initial notice was sufficient, and alternatively, any violation was cured by a subsequent November 9, 2021 meeting with explicit notice and a second vote.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARS 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Violation, Notice and Agenda Requirement, Cure Doctrine, Tennis Court Conversion, Pickleball
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(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. § 33-1803

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 964044.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:30 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 970320.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:30 (58.5 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 974011.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:30 (58.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 982006.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:30 (54.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 982097.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:31 (7.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 994010.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:31 (108.6 KB)

David G. Iadevavia v. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-29
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David G. Iadevavia Counsel —
Respondent Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Carolyn B. Goldschmidt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 2.16

Outcome Summary

The HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against Petitioner regarding his mobile observatory.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the mobile observatory was not a trailer under the plain and obvious meaning of CC&R Section 2.16, or that the HOA's enforcement constituted illegal selective enforcement.

Key Issues & Findings

Selective enforcement of CC&R Section 2.16 regarding vehicles/trailers.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced CC&R Section 2.16 (regarding parking/vehicles/trailers) against him concerning his 'mobile observatory' while failing to enforce the rule or similar rules against other homeowners (sheds).

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 868 T2 1030
  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 177 Arizona 47
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 87P381
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 207 Arizona 393
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13(1)(b),(c) (2000)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • A.R.S. 41-1092.07
  • A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-116

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Selective Enforcement, Trailer, Mobile Observatory, Parking
Additional Citations:

  • CC&R Section 2.16
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes
  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 973802.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:16 (46.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 974694.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:16 (48.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 975118.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:16 (40.9 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977059.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (52.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977202.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977294.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (6.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978417.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978990.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978991.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (42.3 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 979005.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 982403.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (55.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 993469.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:17 (55.5 KB)

Dennis Anderson v. Tara Condominiums Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller Counsel —
Respondent Tara Condominiums Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 11

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 11. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners themselves violated Section 11 by constructing the shed without prior written approval.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&R Section 11; the construction of the shed occurred prior to seeking or obtaining architectural approval, violating Section 11.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unfair, arbitrary, and capricious rejection of Architectural Change Form based on a non-existent rule (shed must not be higher than patio wall).

Petitioners claimed the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 11 by arbitrarily denying their request to construct a shed based on an unwritten rule regarding shed height (must be 3 inches below the wall). Petitioners acknowledged they constructed the shed prior to obtaining approval.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221
  • CC&Rs Section 11

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Change, CC&R Violation, Prior Approval, Shed
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221
  • CC&Rs Section 11

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 986010.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (48.4 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991586.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (114.3 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991600.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (6.5 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 996350.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:36 (47.3 KB)

Terry Marvin & Lori J Lefferts v. The Stone Canyon Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts Counsel —
Respondent The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 11.3; Guidelines § 1, Items 1 & 32; Guidelines § 5, Item 12

Outcome Summary

The Petition alleging that the Stone Canyon Community Association violated its Design Guidelines by granting a variance for secondary improvements within the side-yard setback to Lot 19 owners was dismissed. The ALJ found that the DRC exercised reasonable discretion in granting a deviation (variance) under Guidelines Section 5, Item 12, and the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof.

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Design Review Committee acted reasonably within its authority to grant a deviation (variance) to the Guidelines to allow the proposed secondary improvements (grading, driveway, enclosure) within the 15’ side-yard setback in extenuating circumstances, consistent with the requirements outlined in Guideline Section 5, Item 12.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by DRC when granting a variance for side-yard setback requirements for secondary improvements.

Petitioners (Lot 20 owners) alleged the DRC violated guidelines by granting a variance to Lot 19 owners for placing secondary improvements (driveway, grading, site walls, enclosure) within the 15-foot side-yard setback. Petitioners sought rescission of the variance, arguing the DRC failed to establish an unreasonable hardship or burden as required by Guideline Section 5, Item 12, thereby acting unreasonably and causing diminution in Lot 20 value.

Orders: Petitioners' Petition is dismissed. Petitioners bear their $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 1
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
  • Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Design Review Committee, variance, setback, secondary improvements, reasonable discretion
Additional Citations:

  • CC&R Section 11.3
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 1
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
  • Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 940674.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:35 (56.7 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 953784.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:35 (64.2 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 954492.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:35 (46.5 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 958478.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:36 (48.5 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 958503.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:36 (7.4 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 990387.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:36 (167.8 KB)

John Zumph v. Sanalina Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-01
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John Zumph Counsel —
Respondent Sanalina Homeowners Association Counsel Nick Eicher

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Sanalina HOA did not violate its Bylaws when it removed Petitioner John Zumph from the Board of Directors. The tribunal held that a 'regular meeting' can occur even without the presence of a quorum necessary to conduct business, validating the HOA's decision to declare his office vacant after three consecutive absences.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the Bylaws. The ALJ determined that the meetings existed despite lack of quorum, and the Petitioner's intentional absences constituted an abuse of process and were not in the spirit of the bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Wrongful removal from the Board of Directors

Petitioner challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, arguing that his three consecutive absences from regularly scheduled meetings (July 8, 2021, September 9, 2021, and November 11, 2021) did not count because no quorum was met at those meetings, meaning the meetings did not exist.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
  • Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Board Removal, Quorum Dispute, Bylaw Interpretation, Director Absence, Regular Meeting Definition
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(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)
  • Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
  • Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222049-REL Decision – 988629.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:26 (105.3 KB)

Katherine Belinsky v. Del Cerro Condos

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222046-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Katherine Belinsky Counsel —
Respondent Del Cerro Condos Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), finding that the HOA and its property managers had made records reasonably available for examination.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by A.A.C. R2-19-119. The evidence showed Respondent responded timely to requests, provided some documents, and offered Petitioner appointments to review other sensitive or older records in the office, which she failed to schedule.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide books, records and accounts

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required HOA records, including bank statements, invoices, and contracts, following requests made primarily in March 2022, thereby violating statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Orders: Petitioner's petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Access, Statutory Violation, Burden of Proof, Special Assessment Dispute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes, 216 Ariz. 525, 527, 169 P.3d 115, 117 (App. 2007)
  • Marsoner v. Pima County, 166 Ariz. 486, 488, 803 P.2d 897, 899 (1991)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 971256.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:19 (46.4 KB)

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 983785.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:19 (114.6 KB)

Gregory Ehle V. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-11
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory Ehle Counsel —
Respondent Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency board meeting. The evidence established that no such meeting took place, and the statute does not require the Board to hold one.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as he conceded he did not know if an emergency meeting was held and could not provide legal authority showing that one was required.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation regarding an emergency meeting of the board members.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning the procedures for an emergency board meeting, specifically regarding a message sent out by the HOA's managing agent. The case proceeded on this single issue after Petitioner failed to pay the required additional filing fees for four total issues claimed.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not hold an emergency board meeting and was not required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) to hold one.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
  • 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)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: emergency meeting, board of directors, failure to pay filing fee, burden of proof, dismissal, A.R.S. 33-1804
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
  • 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)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964714.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:50 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964973.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:50 (18.9 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965150.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (44.4 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965339.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (40.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967084.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (55.7 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967089.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (45.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967102.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (7.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 973304.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (47.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 977404.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (50.3 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 982867.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:51 (106.4 KB)