**Case Title:** *Steve Ikeda v. Riverview Park Condominiums*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1213004-BFS

**Hearing Proceedings**
An administrative hearing was held on December 20, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona,. The Petitioner, unit owner Steve Ikeda, appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent, Riverview Park Condominiums, was represented by legal counsel. The dispute concerned the validity of fines imposed by the Respondent for an alleged violation of the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The central issue involved the installation of a satellite dish on the condominium's common property. The relevant CC&Rs prohibit erecting devices for television reception on outdoor portions of the condominium without written approval from the Board of Directors,.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** Mr. Ikeda installed a satellite dish in 2007 when he purchased the unit. Although he had lost the original written permission, he presented a letter from the prior management company dated June 7, 2012, confirming that the developer and Association had approved the 2007 installation,. He argued that he relied on this permission when leasing the unit in 2011 and that the current Association should not deny the permission previously granted,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued that current management files contained no record of written permission for the dish. Furthermore, the Respondent noted that in 2011, the Petitioner's tenant removed the original dish and installed a new one,. The Respondent contended that even if the 2007 installation was permitted, the 2011 replacement required new written approval, which was neither sought nor granted.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. Restrictive covenants are interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the CC&Rs explicitly required written Board approval for such installations on common areas.

The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The evidence did not establish that the Petitioner received valid written permission for the dish currently in place. The argument that the 2011 installation constituted a new event requiring separate approval effectively countered the Petitioner's reliance on the alleged 2007 permission.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
* **Ruling:** The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate the CC&Rs by fining the Petitioner. The Judge ordered that the petition be dismissed.
* **Finality:** The decision was issued on January 7, 2013. As the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period, the decision was certified as the final administrative action on February 13, 2013,.