Tag Archives: 2023

Wanda Swartling v. Val Vista Park Townhome Association of Mesa

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H057-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-01
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Wanda Swartling Counsel —
Respondent Val Vista Park Townhome Association of Mesa Counsel Chad Gallacher

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner’s petition because the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving that the HOA violated ARS § 33-1804 by failing to hold a properly noticed open board meeting prior to the March 2, 2023, special assessment vote. Evidence suggested issues were discussed in prior committee and board meetings, and Petitioner did not prove informal discussions constituted a violation requiring a finding against the Respondent.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent's conduct violated ARS § 33-1804.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold open board meeting prior to special assessment meeting

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting law (ARS § 33-1804) by failing to hold an open board meeting prior to the March 2, 2023, special meeting where members voted on a special assessment, arguing that preliminary discussions and decisions were made unilaterally in supposed closed-door meetings or through email/informal discussions.

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: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meeting Law, Special Assessment, Board Meetings, HOA Governance, Committee Meeting
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • 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.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071114.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:53:27 (5884.7 KB)

23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071115.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:53:29 (7935.6 KB)

23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071120.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:09 (1989.0 KB)

23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071121.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:53:30 (4055.1 KB)

23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071122.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:09 (676.0 KB)

23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071126.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:53:32 (3343.5 KB)

23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071127.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:53:33 (3328.5 KB)

23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071503.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:09 (49.2 KB)

23F-H057-REL Decision – 1079574.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:42:09 (114.8 KB)

Felicia Woodward v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H054-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-07-28
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Felicia Woodward Counsel —
Respondent The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association Counsel Jonathan D. Ebertshauser

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the single-issue petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The ALJ found that the gathering was a 'workshop' and not necessarily a formal 'meeting of the board of directors,' and further found that the Petitioner had received sufficient notice regardless.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by a preponderance of the evidence for the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The tribunal determined the meeting was advertised as a workshop and not a statutory board meeting, and the Petitioner had timely opened the notice email a week prior.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner alleges the Respondent has violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding a meeting that 'had not been properly noticed…'

Petitioner alleged that the March 14, 2023 meeting was not properly noticed because customary channels (email, calendar, sandwich boards) were not used, and the notice provided did not include the meeting location. Respondent argued notice was given through email survey and the community calendar, meeting the statutory requirements, and that the event was a workshop.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Notice Requirements, HOA Board Meeting, Workshop, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1068018.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:55 (54.7 KB)

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:55 (113.6 KB)

Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-07-10
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deborah L. Masear Counsel —
Respondent Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

Article II Section 3 of Respondent’s bylaws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA violated Article II Section 3 of its bylaws by failing to hold the Annual Meeting on the second Monday of March (March 13, 2023). The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee, but a request for a civil penalty was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold an annual meeting as required by bylaws

The HOA failed to hold the mandatory annual meeting on March 13, 2023, as explicitly required by the amended bylaws (Article II Section 3). The meeting was subsequently scheduled for May 8, 2023, 56 days late, constituting a violation, even though the later meeting failed to meet quorum.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent shall 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.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Annual Meeting, Bylaw Violation, Filing Fee Refund
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. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • 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)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H053-REL Decision – 1072068.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:53 (115.3 KB)

Lisa Kittredge v. SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-06-13
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lisa Kittredge Counsel —
Respondent SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Counsel Lori N Brown

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association violated its governing documents by allocating funds from the HOA Contingency funding stream (general assessments) for drainage issues benefitting the SunBird Golf Club, as the 2015 CC&Rs, as amended in 2021, restricted such expenditures exclusively to funds collected under Section 6.7(C).

Key Issues & Findings

Expenditure of HOA Contingency Funds for Golf Course Drainage Maintenance

Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly used annual assessments (Contingency Fund) to pay $15,968 (capped at $20,000) for cleaning drainage wells on the privately owned SunBird Golf Club property. The ALJ concluded that under the 2015 CC&Rs, as amended in 2021, the HOA was only permitted to expend funds collected specifically pursuant to Section 6.7(C) (Capital Improvement Assessment for Golf Course) for golf course drainage issues, and therefore, using the Contingency fund violated the governing documents.

Orders: Respondent must 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:

  • SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Section 6.3(A) (2015)
  • 2021 Amendment to 2015 CC&Rs
  • Section 6.7(C) of the 2021 Amendment
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, CC&R Interpretation, Unauthorized Expenditure, Contingency Fund, Drainage Maintenance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Section 6.3(A) (2015)
  • 2021 Amendment to 2015 CC&Rs
  • Section 6.7(C) of the 2021 Amendment

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H040-REL Decision – 1039237.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:20 (47.3 KB)

23F-H040-REL Decision – 1053619.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:20 (43.9 KB)

23F-H040-REL Decision – 1064270.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:20 (155.3 KB)

Deanna Smith v. Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-06-06
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deanna Smith Counsel —
Respondent Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association Counsel Christina Morgan

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide complete financial statements (including balance sheets and statements of cash flows) to the Petitioner upon request. The HOA was ordered to provide the missing financial statements and reimburse the $500 filing fee. A civil penalty was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide association financial records upon member request.

The Petitioner alleged that the Association failed to comply with her request for financial records dated December 15, 2022, pursuant to ARS § 33-1805. The Association provided only Profit & Loss statements on January 12, 2023, but failed to provide other requisite financial documents, such as balance sheets, statements of cash flows, or statements of income, as defined by ARS § 32-701. The failure to fulfill the request for financial statements constituted a violation.

Orders: The petition was affirmed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A). Respondent was ordered to provide financial statements, as defined by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701, for the months of August 2022 through December 2022 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Petitioner's request for a civil penalty was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Financial Records, Statutory Compliance, Record Request Delay, Filing Fee Reimbursement, HOA Board Member
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • 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.

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H049-REL Decision – 1062328.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:46 (149.9 KB)

Jill P. Eden-Burns v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H015-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-18
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jill P. Eden-Burns Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (C), (E); CC&R 4.32

Outcome Summary

The petition was granted because the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law) by holding an informal quorum discussion prior to a meeting, and violated CC&R 4.32 by improperly charging the homeowner $1750.00 for septic maintenance and repair costs that should have been covered by annual common assessments.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Laws and unequal application of CC&R 4.32 regarding septic system costs.

The Board violated open meeting laws by holding an informal quorum discussion about septic policy prior to a formal meeting. Additionally, the Association improperly charged Petitioner $1750.00 for septic maintenance and repair, violating CC&R 4.32, which mandates such costs be included as part of Assessments allocated equally among all Lots.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent must reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee and henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-33-1804 and CC&R 4.32.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)
  • CC&R 4.32

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meeting Law, HOA Governing Documents, Assessment Dispute, Septic System Maintenance, Informal Meeting
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2102
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)
  • CC&R 4.32
  • CC&R 8.1
  • CC&R 8.2
  • CC&R 11.2
  • CC&R 15.1

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1015027.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (52.0 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1017891.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (53.2 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1024720.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (59.5 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1033722.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (47.5 KB)

23F-H015-REL Decision – 1057466.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:19 (168.6 KB)

Thomas P. Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-19
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

Article lV, Section 4.2(t) of the CC&R's

Outcome Summary

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition on jurisdictional grounds.

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the petition challenged the Association’s power to act (A.R.S. § 10-3304), which requires injunctive relief in a court of law, and did not concern a violation of community documents or statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)).

Key Issues & Findings

Authority to enforce parking rule on residential public streets

Petitioner sought an order prohibiting the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets, alleging the Association breached the CC&Rs by misapplying Article IV, Section 4.2(t).

Orders: The petition was dismissed because OAH lacked jurisdiction as the case challenged the Association's power to act under A.R.S. § 10-3304, rather than alleging a violation of community documents or statute under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Parking Restrictions, Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1057905.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:42 (71.7 KB)

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1059621.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:43 (44.2 KB)

Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. v. Randall & Gisela White

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H042-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $100.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Counsel Michael Shupe, Esq.
Respondent Randall & Gisela White Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 3(j)

Outcome Summary

The HOA's petition was granted. Respondents were found to have violated CC&Rs Section 3(j) by installing tile without approval and were ordered to comply with the CC&Rs, reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $100 civil penalty.

Why this result: Respondents admitted to the alleged conduct and failed to establish a sufficient affirmative defense (incomplete CC&Rs) against the violation, as the recorded CC&Rs provided constructive notice of all provisions. Respondents' conduct during testimony was also considered a factor in aggravation.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized exterior modification (tile installation)

Respondents permanently installed tile on their front porch entryway without obtaining prior written approval. The ALJ rejected the Respondents' defense regarding missing CC&R pages, noting the HOA sustained its burden of proving a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Orders: Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs Section 3(j), reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee, and pay a $100.00 civil penalty to the Department.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $100.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
  • Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R violation, Architectural Review Committee (ALC), exterior modification, tile installation, constructive notice, affirmative defense, HOA maintenance
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. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
  • Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
  • Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1048063.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:27 (55.7 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1055060.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:27 (219.4 KB)

Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony Payson Counsel —
Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Counsel Sean K. Mohnihan

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 5.4

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's alleged failure to enforce nuisance provision (CC&R Section 5.4) regarding neighbor's outdoor television.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Section 5.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:22 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:22 (98.4 KB)

Clifford S Burnes V. Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H038-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-20
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford S. Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Counsel John T. Crotty, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on the allegation that Respondent failed to provide notice of the board meeting in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804, resulting in a refund of $500.00. Respondent prevailed on the allegation that the board meeting was required to be open, as the meeting was properly closed to receive legal advice under a statutory exception.

Why this result: Petitioner lost the open meeting claim because the meeting was protected by the legal advice exception under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide notice of board meeting to members.

Petitioner alleged Respondent conducted an unnoticed board meeting regarding obtaining legal advice. Respondent conceded the meeting was unnoticed. The ALJ concluded Respondent was required to provide notice to members that it would be conducting a board meeting to consider legal advice from an attorney that would be closed to members, and failed to do so.

Orders: Respondent must pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. Respondent is directed to comply with the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Board meeting was not open to all members of the association.

Petitioner alleged the meeting, attended by two board members and an attorney, should have been open. Respondent contended the meeting was a permitted closed session to consider legal advice from an attorney regarding reorganization/disbanding, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1). The ALJ concluded the meeting was not required to be open because the board members were solely receiving legal advice from an attorney.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meetings, Notice Requirement, Legal Advice Exception, Planned Communities Act
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H038-REL Decision – 1036995.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:10 (52.7 KB)

23F-H038-REL Decision – 1050950.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:41:10 (119.2 KB)