Tag Archives: 2023

John R Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H058-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-04
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R. Ashley Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC Counsel James Brewer, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner John R. Ashley's petition against Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. The ALJ found that the HOA did not violate the Bylaws regarding the minimum number of directors because compliance was impossible due to lack of member interest, and the issue was subsequently moot as the board currently met the minimum requirement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut Respondent’s claim that it actively sought a third board member. The Respondent was exonerated under the legal doctrine of impossibility of performance, and the current compliance with the three-member minimum rendered the dispute moot.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation regarding the minimum number of Board Directors

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws by having only two Board Directors dismiss and order a redo of the 1/9/2023 Annual Membership Meeting for 3/7/2023, arguing that three directors were required to properly handle the Association’s affairs.

Orders: The petition is dismissed. Respondent was unable to comply with the Bylaws requiring three directors due to impossibility (lack of member interest) while actively seeking compliance, and the dispute is currently moot as the board now has three or more members.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
  • Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: impossibility of performance, board structure, election dispute, bylaw violation, Planned Communities Act, mootness
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
  • Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Decision Documents

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1075520.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:09 (45.8 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078604.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:09 (47.9 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078608.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:10 (5.5 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1099484.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:10 (104.5 KB)

John W Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-09-20
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John W. Gray Counsel —
Respondent Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARS § 33-1248(B), Bylaw Article 2.1
ARS § 33-1258, Bylaw Article 1.6
ARS § 33-1243(B), Bylaw Article 3.2

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on Issue 2 (Records Requests violation), resulting in the refund of the $500 filing fee. Respondent prevailed on Issue 1 (Failure to Hold Meetings, found moot) and Issue 3 (Board Legitimacy, insufficient evidence). No civil penalty was imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 1 because the failure to hold meetings was resolved and deemed moot. Petitioner lost Issue 3 due to insufficient evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

No meeting was held in 2020, 2021, or 2022

Petitioner alleged violation for failure to hold annual meetings in 2020, 2021, and 2022. The Board admitted meetings were not held due to the pandemic but held an annual meeting in 2023.

Orders: —

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARS § 33-1248(B)
  • Bylaw Article 2.1
  • ARS § 33-1250(C)

Petitioner has received no response to multiple requests for information

Petitioner made multiple requests for information and records (including meeting minutes from 2018-2023 and fire suppression invoices from 2014-2023). Respondent failed to provide copies of minutes from 2018-2019 and records related to the sprinkler system.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 filing fee refund within thirty (30) days and directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 and Bylaw Article 1.6 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARS § 33-1258
  • Bylaw Article 1.6

The people claiming to be the Board are not legitimate, not duly elected, and have appointed themselves to successive terms of office

Petitioner alleged the board members were illegitimate because annual meetings lacked quorum (2018, 2019) or were not held (2020-2022), leading directors to continue in office unlawfully.

Orders: —

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARS § 33-1243(B)
  • Bylaw Article 3.2
  • A.R.S. § 10-3805(E)

Decision Documents

23F-H063-REL Decision – 1081668.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:25 (46.0 KB)

23F-H063-REL Decision – 1095241.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:25 (143.2 KB)

Charlotte Tande v. Wintergardens Co-Operative

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-09-05
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charlotte Tande Counsel —
Respondent Wintergardens Co-Operative Counsel Beth Mulcahy, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1810

Outcome Summary

The case was dismissed because the Administrative Law Judge determined the Wintergardens Co-Operative, a cooperative mobile home park, did not qualify as a 'planned community' or 'condominium association' under Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16, thus the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Why this result: The Respondent was found not to be a 'Planned Community' because its shareholders were lessees, not owners of 'separately owned lots, parcels or units' as required by A.R.S. § 33-1802(4).

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Requirements

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to comply with the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Orders: The case was dismissed after Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Filing fee: $0.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Financial Records Provision

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide certain financial records as required by A.R.S. § 33-1810.

Orders: The case was dismissed after Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Filing fee: $0.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Decision Documents

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1074375.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:14 (45.4 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1089824.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:14 (83.6 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1089829.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:15 (40.0 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1091579.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:15 (38.0 KB)

R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H052-REL No. 23F-H064-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-28
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner R.L. Whitmer Counsel —
Respondent Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners Counsel Emily H. Mann

Alleged Violations

Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws of Hilton Casitas Council of Co-owners
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition regarding the Bylaws violation (annual meeting held 27 days late, 23F-H052-REL) but denied the request for civil penalties. The ALJ dismissed the petition regarding the alleged statutory violation of in-person voting requirements (23F-H064-REL), finding Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. Petitioner was reimbursed the $500 filing fee for the prevailing issue.

Why this result: Petitioner lost the statutory claim (23F-H064-REL) due to failure to provide sufficient evidence for a narrow interpretation of 'in person' voting. Petitioner failed to prove that civil penalties were warranted for the Bylaws violation (23F-H052-REL).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold the annual meeting prior to March 31, 2023 (23F-H052-REL)

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to hold the annual meeting by the Bylaws' deadline of March 31, 2023. Respondent stipulated that the meeting, held on April 27, 2023, was late, constituting a violation.

Orders: Respondent violated Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws; Petition affirmed. Petitioner was denied civil penalties but was reimbursed the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02

Alleged violation for failing to allow in-person voting (23F-H064-REL)

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated the statute by allowing voting only through video conferencing and failing to provide an opportunity for in-person voting. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a narrow interpretation of 'in person' that excludes remote video attendance.

Orders: Respondent did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C). Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Annual Meeting Deadline, Bylaws Violation, HOA Voting Procedure, In-Person Voting, Video Conferencing Voting, Civil Penalties, Mootness Defense, Waiver Defense
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1071110.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:50 (50.2 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1071477.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:50 (58.2 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1074907.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:50 (40.0 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1088736.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:51 (113.8 KB)

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 2025-10-09T03:41:57 (44.1 KB)

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1086088.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:58 (110.9 KB)

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

Decision Documents

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1055488.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:34 (49.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1057334.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:34 (43.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1083773.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:34 (105.1 KB)

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 2025-10-09T03:41:39 (41.2 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049882.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:39 (47.2 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1055238.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:40 (50.0 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1057283.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:40 (50.3 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1058121.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:40 (52.9 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1059849.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:40 (52.5 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1072130.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:40 (49.8 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1082955.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:40 (155.5 KB)

Jennifer J Sullivan v. The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jennifer J Sullivan Counsel —
Respondent The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Michael S. McLeran

Alleged Violations

Article 4, Section 4.1 of the Community’s CC&Rs; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's petition, finding that the HOA's CC&Rs (Section 4.1) prohibited nonresidential use, including short-term renting (deemed a business by the tribunal), unless the lot was rented or leased for month-to-month or longer terms. Therefore, rentals shorter than a month were prohibited.

Why this result: The tribunal determined the Petitioner failed to meet her burden, as her short-term rental operation constituted a prohibited nonresidential use/business under Section 4.1 of the CC&Rs, which only permits leasing for Month to Month or Longer Terms.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenging HOA Violation Notice for Short-Term Rental Restriction

Petitioner challenged the Courtesy Violation Notice issued by the HOA for operating a short-term rental (Airbnb) with a minimum rental period less than month-to-month, arguing the CC&Rs did not explicitly prohibit such rentals. The HOA maintained that Section 4.1 prohibited nonresidential use, unless leased for month-to-month or longer terms, thereby prohibiting short-term rentals/business use.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • PAL versus Washburn 211 Arizona 553 2006
  • Burke versus Voiceream Wireless Corporation 2 2007 Arizona 393 quarter of appeal 2004
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, short-term rental, CC&R interpretation, business use, 30-day minimum
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • PAL versus Washburn 211 Arizona 553 2006
  • Burke versus Voiceream Wireless Corporation 2 2007 Arizona 393 quarter of appeal 2004
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1050430.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:30 (47.3 KB)

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081482.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:30 (59.0 KB)

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081483.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:31 (117.7 KB)

Richard K. Morris v. The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-07
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard K. Morris Counsel —
Respondent The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's claim that the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 9.2 by forcing the removal of a previously approved security light. The HOA was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the Petitioner's request for a civil penalty was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Respondent required permanent removal of pre-approved security light in violation of CC&Rs Section 9.2.

Petitioner had Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval from 2010 to install a security light on the shed fascia (a common area). Respondent HOA later required its removal, arguing their fiduciary duty and a new roofing warranty (2023) voided the prior approval. The ALJ found the HOA failed to perform due diligence regarding the pre-existing ARC approval before contracting the new work and violated CC&Rs Section 9.2, which allows rebuilding in accordance with previously approved plans.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs and reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • 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. § 33-1804
  • 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)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: ARC Approval, CC&R Violation, Fiduciary Duty, Homeowner Victory, Warranty Voidance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • 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. § 33-1804
  • 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)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1073539.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:01 (51.9 KB)

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1080973.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:01 (110.3 KB)

Ryan McMahon v. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H060-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-07
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ryan McMahon Counsel —
Respondent Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association Counsel Mike Yohler

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to fully satisfy sub-requirements 6, 7, and/or 8 of the Preliminary Architectural Approval Letter, as the documentation provided (specifically from the plumbing company and designer) lacked the necessary professional weight or specificity required by the Association to address structural and plumbing concerns.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statute regarding denial of interior modification request.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1221 by denying his request to combine two units and add two bathrooms, claiming the denial was unsupported by facts or governing documents. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove the violation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9, Article 3
  • 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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium modification, HOA denial, structural integrity, plumbing concerns, burden of proof, architectural approval
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9, Article 3
  • 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
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Decision Documents

23F-H060-REL Decision – 1081134.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:17 (189.0 KB)