Tag Archives: 2024

Cross Creek Ranch Community Association v. Turquoise Textures, LLC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H005-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-12-16
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Cross Creek Ranch Community Association Counsel —
Respondent Turquoise Textures, LLC Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1.3; Article 7, Section 7.5

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition filed by the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association, finding that Turquoise Textures, LLC violated CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1.3 and Article 7, Section 7.5 by clear cutting old growth trees and vegetation in violation of approved plans. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with governing documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by clear cutting old growth trees and vegetation contrary to approved plans.

Petitioner alleged Respondent clear cut approximately 30 old growth trees and native vegetation, violating approved plans and governing documents, and presenting a nuisance. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner sustained its burden of proof that Respondent violated the Association’s governing documents, regardless of whether Respondent directed the general contractor, and granted the petition.

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. § 32-2102
  • 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.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA violations, ARC approval, clear cutting, landscaping, governing documents, filing fee reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • 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.

Decision Documents

25F-H005-REL Decision – 1246254.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:38 (51.8 KB)

25F-H005-REL Decision – 1252576.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:38 (148.6 KB)

25F-H005-REL Decision – 1252586.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:38 (55.1 KB)

Keystone Owners Association V. Bernadette M. Bennett

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-12-09
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keystone Owners Association Counsel Erica L. Mortenson
Respondent Bernadette M. Bennett Counsel Thomas A. Walcott

Alleged Violations

Mountain Park Association CC&Rs Art. IV, Sec. 2; Keystone CC&Rs Art. V, Sec. 5.19; Rules (35% Frontage Limit)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed. The Respondent (Homeowner) was found in violation of Governing Documents for installing an unapproved driveway extension that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the $1,500.00 filing fee and comply with all Governing Documents henceforth. No civil penalty was levied.

Why this result: Respondent failed to obtain prior written approval for the driveway alteration and failed to prove the affirmative defense of laches.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Driveway Extension Exceeding 35% of Total Yard Frontage Area

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by installing a driveway extension exceeding 35% of the total yard frontage area without prior written approval. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred and the Respondent failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $1,500.00 for the filing fee and comply henceforth with the Governing Documents.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, ARC, Driveway, Frontage Area, CC&Rs, Laches
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Decision Documents

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1159036.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (52.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180542.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (49.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180545.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:34 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198622.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (50.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198623.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1225107.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (52.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227639.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:35 (48.7 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227642.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (5.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1230660.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (45.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1241815.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (48.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1250037.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:36 (113.0 KB)

R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H001-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-11-12
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found the Respondent HOA in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) for failing to contain the name of the association in the Declaration. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Declaration requirements for naming the condominium and association.

Petitioner claimed the Declaration failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) because it lacked the formal name of the association. Respondent argued the existing reference to the 'Council of Co-owners' was sufficient because case law established the current association was the successor entity. The Tribunal found the Declaration did not contain the name of the association as required.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days and shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-550
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(15)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1219(A)
  • London v Carrick
  • Schaefer v Pro Keanti AZ2 LP
  • Eli v Cro County A

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium Act, Declaration, Statute of Limitations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-550
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(15)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1219(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • London v Carrick
  • Schaefer v Pro Keanti AZ2 LP
  • Eli v Cro County A

Decision Documents

25F-H001-REL Decision – 1235116.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:34 (44.0 KB)

25F-H001-REL Decision – 1241814.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:35 (115.8 KB)

AZNH Revocable Trust V. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H047-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-11-05
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner AZNH Revocable Trust Counsel John F. Sullivan
Respondent Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was in compliance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(7) by providing the electronic data lists received from the voting vendor (Vote HOA Now), as the statute requires storage of 'electronic votes' not necessarily 'electronic ballots' (images).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide voting records (electronic ballots) for inspection

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to provide all voting materials, specifically images of each actual online ballot, in response to the February 28, 2024, inspection request, arguing this violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
  • 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.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Voting Records, Electronic Voting, HOA Records Inspection, Statutory Interpretation, ARS 33-1812
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
  • 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. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04

Decision Documents

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1240168.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:12 (184.8 KB)

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1330098.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:12 (48.9 KB)

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1330115.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:12 (6.2 KB)

Justin R. Sheakley v. Arizona Hillcrest Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-10-21
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Justin R. Sheakley Counsel —
Respondent Arizona Hillcrest Community Association Counsel Quinten Cupps

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.2

Outcome Summary

Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing Respondent violated its Community Documents concerning the determination of structural damage required for shared cost repair under CC&R 11.2.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board was unreasonable when determining the wall at issue was structurally damaged.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute regarding cost sharing for common wall repair (structural damage determination)

Petitioner claimed the wall only required cosmetic repair (HOA responsibility per CC&R 11.2) rather than structural replacement (shared cost). The HOA relied on contractor assessment indicating structural damage. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated the CC&Rs or acted unreasonably in ordering the repair.

Orders: Respondent deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Structural Damage, HOA Maintenance, Cost Sharing, HOA Discretion
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.2
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Decision Documents

24F-H056-REL Decision – 1211424.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:32 (55.5 KB)

24F-H056-REL Decision – 1235391.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:32 (125.4 KB)

Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H054-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-20
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lisa Marx Counsel —
Respondent Tara Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1248 (A), (D), (E), and (F); and Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on the 'Records' issue (A.R.S. § 33-1258), resulting in a $500.00 filing fee reimbursement. Respondent prevailed on the 'Example 13' issue (A.R.S. § 33-1248 and CC&Rs § 9(E)).

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain her burden regarding the Open Meeting Law allegations, finding that TARA conducted meetings in compliance and the specific volunteer work referenced was not statutorily or contractually required to be placed on an agenda for formal action.

Key Issues & Findings

Records Access Violation

TARA failed to timely provide access to TARA HOA records it possessed, violating the ten business day fulfillment requirement for examination requests.

Orders: TARA was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Open Meeting Law Violation (Example 13)

Petitioner alleged open meeting violations concerning volunteer work and projects not placed on agendas or formally voted upon by the board (Example 13).

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed as to alleged violations of A.R.S. § 33-1248(A), (D), (E), and (F) and/or Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)
  • Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records, Open Meeting Law, Partial Victory, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Decision Documents

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1212274.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:27 (70.4 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1212281.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:28 (12.4 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1216809.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:28 (50.9 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1225818.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:28 (168.1 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1226250.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:28 (41.9 KB)

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel, Rick Jr. &

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom
Respondent Rick Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article V, Section 5.22; Guidelines Section 2.24

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the HOA's petition, finding the HOA failed to meet its burden of proving a violation. The homeowner justifiably relied on the ARC's approval, which was granted rapidly and without clarification requests, despite the lack of detail on the wall height, effectively granting an exception to the Guidelines.

Why this result: The HOA (Petitioner) failed to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the plans after multiple rounds of review, and the homeowner relied on that approval. The delay in the stop construction notice was also deemed unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Construction of unapproved structures/patio walls in excess of permitted height

Petitioner (HOA) alleged Respondent (homeowner) violated community documents by constructing walls around a courtyard in excess of the 42-inch height limit set by the Guidelines Section 2.24, and without sufficient prior approval (CC&R Section 5.22). The constructed wall was approximately 8 feet high.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Review, Wall Height, Pony Wall, Approval Reliance, Burden of Proof, Unreasonable Delay
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article V, Section 5.22
  • Guidelines Section 2.24

Decision Documents

24F-H050-REL Decision – 1222437.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:24 (132.2 KB)

Taylor Kidd vs Heritage Village III Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-23
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer Counsel Patrick T. Nackley
Respondent Heritage Village III Homeowners Association Counsel Tessa Knueppel and Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4 and Heritage Village III HO CC&R Article VII, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Association violated its own CC&Rs (Article VII, Section 1) by failing to incorporate and follow Article III, Section 4 of the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs, which required a two-thirds vote of voting owners for a special assessment for capital improvements. Both petitions were granted, and the Association was ordered to refund the total filing fees of $1,000.00.

Why this result: Respondent failed to take the required vote regarding the special assessment for the Landscape Improvement Project, in violation of the controlling CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs by approving a Landscape Improvement Project and potential special assessment for a capital improvement without the required 2/3 membership vote.

The Association violated its CC&Rs by failing to follow the McCormick Ranch CC&R provision requiring the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by Voting Owners for a Special Assessment intended for construction, reconstruction, repair, or replacement of a capital improvement (the Landscape Improvement Project).

Orders: The petitions were granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse both Petitioners' filing fees pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4
  • Association CC&R Article VII, Section 1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Special Assessment, Capital Improvement, Membership Vote, CC&R Violation, Consolidation, Master Association
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.7
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

Decision Documents

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182719.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (62.8 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182767.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (13.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182769.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:54 (50.0 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1203525.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (49.3 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1215299.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (123.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1226570.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:55 (39.7 KB)

Deborah Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deborah Masear Counsel —
Respondent Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association Counsel Erica L. Mortenson

Alleged Violations

Park By-Laws Article III, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA (Park) was in compliance with its By-Laws. Frank Maiz was found to be the spouse of the unit owner (Mercedes B.B. Maiz), making him eligible to serve on the Board of Directors.

Why this result: Petitioner was mistaken regarding the current ownership of the unit at issue and failed to prove the respondent violated the Park By-Laws.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors Qualification (Owner/Spouse Requirement)

Petitioner alleged that Frank Maiz was ineligible for the Board because his wife, Mercedes B.B. Maiz, was not the true owner of the unit, arguing that their daughter (also Mercedes B.B. Maiz) was the owner based on a recorded Beneficiary Deed. The Respondent proved that the wife owned the property, making Frank Maiz eligible as her spouse.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Park is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner shall bear her filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Decision Documents

24F-H041-REL Decision – 1178740.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:00 (54.4 KB)

24F-H041-REL Decision – 1202883.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:00 (42.7 KB)

24F-H041-REL Decision – 1211324.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:44:00 (120.7 KB)

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)

Decision Documents

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:45 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:45 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:45 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:46 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:46 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:46 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:43:46 (146.3 KB)