**Case Title:** *William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Association, Inc.*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212014-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (for the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety)

**Summary of Proceedings**
Petitioner William M. Brown filed a petition alleging that the Respondent, Terravita Community Association, Inc., violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to specific association records requested on May 25, 2012. The Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Mootness, arguing that the requested documents either did not exist or were legally protected from disclosure.

**Key Facts and Legal Issues**
The Petitioner sought two categories of records:
1. **Legal Engagement Documents:** An engagement letter, retainer agreement, or fee schedule between the Association and the law firm Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C..
2. **Meeting Minutes:** Minutes from Board of Directors executive sessions held on March 27, 2012, and April 24, 2012.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) addressed the legal standing of these requests under Arizona Revised Statutes:

* **Attorney-Client Privilege:** Regarding the legal engagement documents, the Respondent stated that no such letter existed. The ALJ ruled that even if such a letter existed, it would be protected by attorney-client privilege under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) and could not be disclosed to a third party without a waiver from the Respondent.
* **Executive Session Confidentiality:** Regarding the meeting minutes, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) dictates that Board executive sessions are not open to the public or non-Board members. Consequently, the minutes for the March 27, 2012, session were not public records available to the Petitioner pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3).
* **Non-Existent Meetings:** Regarding the alleged April 24, 2012, meeting, the Respondent contended no such meeting occurred. The ALJ ruled that even if minutes existed, they would be similarly protected from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3).

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner was not entitled to view or receive the requested records, regardless of whether they existed. The ALJ determined there were no issues requiring an evidentiary hearing and granted the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Mootness on October 4, 2012.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on November 13, 2012, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe.