Case Summary
| Case ID | 07F-H067002-BFS |
|---|---|
| Agency | Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2007-02-21 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Diane Mihalsky |
| Outcome | no |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $550.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Lawrence M. Wojtowicz | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners’ Association | Counsel | Tanis A. Duncan |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Petitioner admitted the dispute was not against the HOA but against the Developer/LLC regarding the validity of CC&R amendments and control of amenities. The tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over disputes concerning the design/construction/sale/ownership involving the developer. The HOA's request for attorney's fees was denied because the CC&Rs did not explicitly provide for fee awards in administrative proceedings.
Why this result: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the dispute was against the Developer/Declarant regarding validity of amendments, not the HOA.
Key Issues & Findings
Board Constitution and Validity of CC&R Amendments
Petitioner alleged the HOA Board was not properly constituted and that 2003/2006 amendments to the CC&Rs were invalid because the original 1985 CC&Rs specified a 30-year term. Petitioner sought to return common areas to their 2003 condition.
Orders: Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
07F-H067002-BFS Decision – 162561.pdf
Case Briefing: Wojtowicz v. Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners’ Association (No. 07F-H067002-BFS)
Executive Summary
On February 5, 2007, the Office of Administrative Hearings for the State of Arizona issued a decision regarding a dispute brought by Petitioner Lawrence M. Wojtowicz against the Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”). The Petitioner sought to invalidate the 2003 and 2006 amendments to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), arguing that the original 1985 governing documents precluded such changes until a 30-year term had expired.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint on jurisdictional grounds, concluding that the Petitioner’s grievances were directed at the actions of the developer/declarant (Voyager at Juniper Ridge, LLC) rather than the HOA itself. Furthermore, the ALJ denied the HOA’s application for attorney’s fees, ruling that administrative proceedings do not qualify as “actions” under Arizona law for the purpose of fee recovery, despite provisions within the CC&Rs.
Background of the Planned Community and Governing Documents
The Original 1985 CC&Rs
Voyager at Juniper Ridge RV Resort and Country Club is a planned community comprising 529 lots. The original CC&Rs were recorded on September 24, 1985, by the developer, Global Development. Key provisions included:
• Duration: The CC&Rs were to run with the land for an initial term of 30 years, after which they would automatically extend for 10-year periods.
• Amendments: Amendments required an instrument signed by owners representing at least two-thirds of the outstanding votes.
• Attorney’s Fees: Section 11.3 stipulated that in any “action arising out of or in connection with this Declaration,” the prevailing party would be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.
Ownership Succession
Between 1985 and 2003, ownership shifted due to slow sales and the bankruptcy of the Baptist Foundation, which had acquired unsold lots and development rights. In April 2003, Voyager at Juniper Ridge, LLC (the “LLC”), managed by N.E. Isaacson, purchased 228 lots and the Declarant’s rights at auction.
Evolution of CC&R Amendments
Following the acquisition, the LLC recorded significant changes to the governing documents to facilitate community revitalization and expansion.
Amendment Type
Key Changes
Approval Level
July 9, 2003
Amended and Restated Declaration
Established two classes of membership (Class A for owners, Class B for Declarant with 10 votes per lot); defined board composition.
72% of record owners
Nov 5, 2003
First Amendment
Further modifications to the restated declaration.
Not specified
Feb 21, 2006
Additional Amendment
Allowed a “Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement” with White Mountain Lake Vistas HOA.
87% of record owners
During this period, the LLC reportedly invested approximately $600,000 in common area repairs (including tennis and bocce ball courts) and $300,000 in lot development.
The Petitioner’s Challenge
Legal Basis of the Dispute
Petitioner Lawrence M. Wojtowicz, who purchased a lot in 2004 and briefly served on the HOA Board, challenged the validity of the 2003 and 2006 amendments. His arguments, supported by legal counsel, centered on the following:
1. Term Restrictions: Citing Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners, the Petitioner argued that the CC&Rs could only be amended upon the expiration of the initial term in September 2015.
2. Successor Rights: He contended that the LLC was not a proper successor to the original Declarant, Global Development.
3. Invalidity of Governance: He argued that because the amendments were unlawful, the current HOA Board was improperly constituted and its actions were null and void.
Requested Relief
The Petitioner sought a ruling requiring the LLC to return the common area amenities to their April 2003 condition and requested reimbursement for $10,891.45 in legal expenses plus filing fees.
Administrative Findings and Dismissal
The ALJ granted the HOA’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on several legal and jurisdictional factors:
Lack of Jurisdiction
Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), the Department of Building, Fire and Life Safety lacks jurisdiction over:
• Disputes between owners where the association is not a party.
• Disputes between an owner and a person or entity engaged in the business of constructing or selling property within a planned community.
The ALJ determined that the Petitioner’s dispute was fundamentally with the LLC and Mr. Isaacson regarding their status as Declarants and their right to amend documents. Since the Petitioner admitted his dispute was not against the HOA itself, the matter fell outside the administrative forum’s authority.
Inappropriate Forum for Declaratory Relief
The ALJ noted that the relief sought—the invalidation of amendments affecting all residents and the physical restoration of common areas—was more appropriate for a declaratory judgment action in superior court. Such an action would allow for the joinder of all potentially affected property owners, which is not possible in an administrative proceeding.
Adjudication of Attorney’s Fees
The HOA filed an application for attorney’s fees based on Section 11.3 of the CC&Rs. The ALJ denied this application, citing established Arizona case law (Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.):
• Definition of “Action”: An administrative agency is not characterized as a “court,” and therefore an administrative proceeding does not constitute an “action” for the purposes of statutory fee recovery (A.R.S. § 12-341.01).
• Original Intent: The ALJ found no evidence that the original 1985 Declarant or subsequent voters intended for the fee-shifting provision to apply to administrative tribunals that did not exist at the time of the original recording.
• Strict Interpretation: Because the language of the CC&Rs mirrored statutory language typically applied to court actions, the ALJ inferred it should be interpreted consistently with those statutes, which exclude administrative proceedings.
Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:
1. The Petitioner’s complaint against Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners Association was dismissed.
2. The Respondent HOA’s application for attorney’s fees was denied.
Study Guide: Lawrence M. Wojtowicz v. Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners’ Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case involving Lawrence M. Wojtowicz and the Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners’ Association. It explores the history of the planned community’s governing documents, the nature of the legal dispute, and the final decision regarding jurisdiction and attorney’s fees.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided administrative decision.
1. What were the requirements for amending the original 1985 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
2. How did the 2003 amendments change the voting structure within the planned community?
3. What was the primary legal argument Petitioner Lawrence M. Wojtowicz used to challenge the 2003 CC&R amendments?
4. Why did the HOA President, Sue Fuller, initially request that the Department of Building, Fire and Life Safety dismiss the petition?
5. What specific improvements did Voyager at Juniper Ridge, LLC (the LLC) make to the community after the 2003 auction?
6. According to the Conclusions of Law, what is the definition of a “preponderance of the evidence”?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction?
8. What was the outcome of the HOA’s application for attorney’s fees?
9. How did the case Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc. influence the ALJ’s decision regarding legal costs?
10. What alternative legal path did the ALJ suggest for the Petitioner to seek relief against the LLC and Mr. Isaacson?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. Amendment Requirements: The 1985 CC&Rs stated that the provisions would bind the land for 30 years and then automatically extend for 10-year periods. Any amendments during this time required a recorded instrument signed by owners holding at least two-thirds of the outstanding votes.
2. Voting Structure Changes: The 2003 amendments established two classes of membership: Class A for regular owners (one vote per lot) and Class B for the Declarant (ten votes per lot). Class B membership was designed to cease only when the Declarant no longer owned any portion of the property.
3. Petitioner’s Legal Argument: Citing Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners, Wojtowicz argued that the CC&Rs could only be amended at the expiration of the initial term in 2015, making the 2003 changes ineffective. He also challenged whether the LLC was a legitimate successor to the original Declarant, Global Development.
4. HOA Motion to Dismiss: President Sue Fuller argued that the Department lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was clearly between the Petitioner and the LLC/N.E. Isaacson, rather than the Association itself. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), the Department does not have the authority to hear disputes between owners and developers regarding the sale or construction of property.
5. Community Improvements: Following the 2003 auction, the LLC invested more than $600,000 to repair and develop common facilities, including the construction of tennis and bocce ball courts. Additionally, approximately $300,000 was spent to complete the development of remaining lots for marketing.
6. Preponderance of the Evidence: This legal standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. It represents the superior evidentiary weight or “greater weight of the evidence” that inclines an impartial mind toward one side of an issue.
7. Jurisdictional Determination: The ALJ found that the dispute concerned the validity of the amendments and the actions of the developer/declarant rather than the application of the CC&Rs by the HOA. Because the statutes exclude disputes between owners and those engaged in the business of constructing or selling property within a community, the OAH had no authority to rule.
8. Attorney’s Fees Outcome: The ALJ denied the HOA’s application for attorney’s fees. The judge concluded that administrative proceedings do not qualify as “actions” under the relevant statutes or the specific language of the community’s CC&Rs.
9. Influence of Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.: This case established that an administrative agency is not a court and therefore its proceedings are not “actions” for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. The ALJ applied this precedent to determine that the HOA was not entitled to recover fees despite being the prevailing party.
10. Suggested Alternative Relief: The ALJ noted that the Petitioner could seek a declaratory judgment in superior court. This venue would allow for the joinder of all potentially affected property owners in the planned community, which is necessary for a dispute affecting the rights of all residents.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the source context to develop detailed responses to the following prompts.
1. The Role of the Declarant: Analyze the transition of Declarant rights from Global Development to Voyager at Juniper Ridge, LLC. Discuss the significance of these rights in the context of the 2003 amendments and the Petitioner’s challenge to the “unbroken chain” of assignment.
2. Jurisdictional Boundaries of the OAH: Evaluate why the Administrative Law Judge determined that the Office of Administrative Hearings was an improper venue for this specific dispute. Compare the statutory limitations of A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)(1) and (2) with the Petitioner’s stated “Prayers to the Court.”
3. Contractual Interpretation of “Action”: Discuss the HOA’s argument that the 1985 CC&Rs intended “action” to include administrative proceedings. Contrast this with the ALJ’s reasoning regarding the timeline of the Semple decision and the subsequent amendments to the CC&Rs.
4. The Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners Precedent: Detail how the Scholten case served as the foundation for the Petitioner’s complaint. Explain the LLC’s counter-argument regarding why this case should not be considered controlling authority for the Juniper Ridge community.
5. Equitable Defenses and Property Value: Based on the correspondence from Attorney Rollman, examine the potential consequences of invalidating the 2003 CC&R amendments. Discuss the “equitable defenses” raised regarding the LLC’s financial investments and the potential impact on community property values.
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
The Arizona Revised Statute that allows property owners in a planned community to petition for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or state statutes.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding officer who conducts hearings and issues decisions for administrative agencies; in this case, Diane Mihalsky.
Amended and Restated Declaration
A legal document recorded in 2003 that modified the original 1985 CC&Rs, including changes to voting rights and board composition.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and operations of a planned community.
Class B Membership
A specific category of membership reserved for the Declarant, granting ten votes for each lot owned, effectively maintaining control over the association.
Common Areas
The shared facilities and land within a planned community, such as tennis courts and bocce ball courts, managed by the HOA.
Declarant
The entity (originally Global Development, later Voyager at Juniper Ridge, LLC) that established the community and holds specific rights to develop and manage it.
Declaratory Judgment
A legal determination by a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants without necessarily awarding damages or ordering specific action.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
The agency responsible for conducting independent administrative hearings for the state of Arizona.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal proceeding or petition; in this case, Lawrence M. Wojtowicz.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning that the evidence shows a fact is more likely true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition or legal action is filed; in this case, the Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners’ Association.
Successor in Interest
A party that takes over the rights and obligations of another party through a legal transfer, such as the purchase of lots and Declarant rights.
Case Summary: Wojtowicz v. Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners’ Association Case No: 07F-H067002-BFS Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona) Date: February 21, 2007
Key Facts and Proceedings Petitioner Lawrence M. Wojtowicz filed a complaint against the Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners’ Association (HOA) regarding the validity of amendments made to the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)12. The original CC&Rs, recorded in 1985, contained a provision stating they would bind the land for a term of 30 years3. In 2003, a successor developer, Voyager at Juniper Ridge, LLC (the LLC), acquired the remaining lots and recorded amendments to the CC&Rs which, among other changes, altered voting rights and board composition4….
The Petitioner challenged these amendments, arguing that under the legal precedent Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners, the CC&Rs could not be amended until the initial 30-year term expired in 201528. He sought to invalidate the amendments and restore the community to its 2003 condition9. The dispute was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings10.
Main Issues and Arguments The primary issues concerned subject matter jurisdiction and the award of attorney’s fees.
1. Motion to Dismiss (Jurisdiction): The HOA and the LLC moved to dismiss the case. They argued that the Department of Building, Fire and Life Safety and the OAH lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was essentially between an owner and a developer regarding the validity of community documents, rather than a violation of existing documents by the HOA1112.
2. Attorney’s Fees: The HOA requested attorney’s fees based on Section 11.3 of the CC&Rs, which allowed the prevailing party to recover fees in any “action arising out of or in connection with this Declaration”1314.
Final Decision and Legal Analysis Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Diane Mihalsky issued a decision dismissing the complaint and denying the application for attorney’s fees15.
• Dismissal on Jurisdiction: The ALJ granted the motion to dismiss16. During the hearing, the Petitioner admitted his dispute was not actually against the Respondent HOA16. The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s allegations centered on the LLC’s (the developer’s) wrongful amendment of the CC&Rs12. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), the administrative body lacks jurisdiction over disputes between owners and developers regarding the design, construction, or sale of property within a planned community1217. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner’s remedy lay in filing a declaratory judgment action in Superior Court, where all affected parties could be joined17.
• Denial of Attorney’s Fees: The ALJ denied the HOA’s request for fees15. Citing Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., the ALJ determined that an administrative agency is not a court, and an administrative proceeding does not constitute an “action” under A.R.S. § 12-341.0118. The Judge reasoned that because the CC&Rs borrowed language from the statute, the drafters likely intended the fee provision to apply only to court actions, not administrative hearings19. The HOA failed to provide evidence that the amendments made after Semple was decided intended to expand fee liability to administrative forums20.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Lawrence M. Wojtowicz (Petitioner)
Homeowner
Appeared on his own behalf - Dan G. Curtis (attorney)
Provided legal opinion/expenses incurred by Petitioner - Michael J. Brown (attorney)
Brown and Brown Law Offices, P.C.
Hired by Petitioner to challenge 2003 amendments - Douglas E. Brown (attorney)
Brown and Brown Law Offices, P.C.
Hired by Petitioner to challenge 2003 amendments
Respondent Side
- Tanis A. Duncan (attorney)
Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners’ Association - N.E. Isaacson (managing member)
Voyager at Juniper Ridge, LLC
Developer; LLC moved to intervene - Sue Fuller (HOA President)
Voyager at Juniper Ridge Homeowners’ Association
Attended hearing - Richard M. Rollman (attorney)
Voyager at Juniper Ridge, LLC
Gabroy, Rollman, & Bossé, P.C.; represented intervening LLC - Michael Botwin (attorney)
Voyager at Juniper Ridge, LLC
Represented intervening LLC - Mr. Fuller (witness)
Homeowner
Husband of Sue Fuller; attended hearing
Neutral Parties
- Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge - Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Agency Director - Joyce Kesterman (agency staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Agency contact
Other Participants
- Clifton R. Jessup, Jr. (attorney)
Patton Boggs, LLP
Recipient of letter from Dan Curtis in 2003
