**Case Title:** *Robert L. Vise v. East 12 Condo HOA*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212003-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Final Certification:** July 26, 2012

**Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a dispute between a condominium unit owner (Petitioner) and the Homeowners Association (Respondent) regarding the allocation of insurance proceeds and the responsibility for roof repairs.

**Key Facts and Proceedings**
* **The Incident:** Following a storm in late 2010, the Association submitted a claim under a blanket insurance policy. The insurer paid approximately $3,374.39 for wind damage.
* **Allocation of Funds:** Because damage varied across units, the Board was unsure how to equitably distribute the proceeds. A vote of the membership was held in April 2011, resulting in an 8-to-4 decision to place the insurance proceeds into a contingency fund rather than funding specific repairs immediately.
* **Petitioner’s Claim:** The Petitioner alleged that his roof sustained damage that the Association failed to repair, violating A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) and Section 5(H) of the CC&Rs. He argued the insurance proceeds should be used for his roof repairs and sought reimbursement for filing and attorney fees.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association presented testimony from Board members and a neighbor sharing the Petitioner's roof structure. They testified that the damage identified in estimates belonged to the neighbor's unit, not the Petitioner’s.

**Key Legal Arguments and Analysis**
* **Burden of Proof:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association violated state statute or the CC&Rs.
* **Evidence of Damage:** The hearing featured conflicting evidence. While the Petitioner provided photographs and contractor estimates, the Respondent provided witness testimony disputing the location of the damage.
* **Self-Repair Complication:** The Petitioner admitted to performing some repairs himself following the storm. The ALJ noted that this action may have obscured evidence, making it difficult to verify what damage, if any, existed prior to his intervention.
* **Statutory Obligations:** A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) requires associations to repair damaged common elements for which insurance is required. However, the applicability of this statute relied on the proven existence of damage.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
* **Findings:** The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove that his roof was actually damaged or required repair. Because the existence of damage was not established, the ALJ did not need to rule on whether the placement of insurance proceeds into a contingency fund was improper.
* **Ruling:** The ALJ determined the Respondent did not violate the CC&Rs or A.R.S. § 33-1253(H).
* **Order:** The Petition was dismissed, and the Petitioner’s request for fees and relief was denied.
* **Certification:** The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not modify or reject the decision within the statutory timeframe; thus, the ALJ decision was certified as the final administrative decision on July 26, 2012.