Case Summary
| Case ID | 15F-H1516003-BFS |
|---|---|
| Agency | Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety |
| Tribunal | Office of Administrative Hearings |
| Decision Date | 2015-12-23 |
| Administrative Law Judge | M. Douglas |
| Outcome | no |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Unknown | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Unknown | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article 16, Section 16.2
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board's modification of the Rules and Regulations regarding patio storage was not a violation of the CC&Rs and did not require a vote by the owners. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof to establish that the rule change was invalid or required membership approval.
Key Issues & Findings
Unauthorized Rule Change
Petitioner alleged that the Board violated the CC&Rs by modifying a rule regarding patio storage without obtaining approval from two-thirds of the owners.
Orders: The petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- CC&Rs Article 16, Section 16.2
- A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Decision Documents
15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 472974.pdf
15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 486288.pdf
**Case Summary: Oberritter v. Scottsdale Trails (No. 15F-H1516003-BFS)**
**Proceedings and Parties**
This administrative hearing was held on December 9, 2015, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, Sharon Oberritter, a homeowner and Board member, appeared on her own behalf against the Respondent, Scottsdale Trails (a homeowners’ association), represented by legal counsel.
**Key Facts and Main Issues**
The central dispute involved the validity of a June 2014 Board vote that modified the community's Rules and Regulations regarding items stored on patios and balconies.
* **The Change:** The Board voted 4-3 to amend "Section 4, Paragraph 2" of the Rules and Regulations. The modification added language stating that patio storage is prohibited "unless approved by the Board of Directors," explicitly referencing Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner alleged that this modification effectively altered Article 16, Section 16.2 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). She argued that changing the CC&Rs requires approval by a two-thirds vote of the owners, making the Board's majority vote invalid. She further expressed concern that the change would negatively impact property appearance and values.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** A testifying Board member stated the vote was to modify the "Rules and Regulations" to comply with the CC&Rs rather than changing the CC&Rs themselves, characterizing it as a "semantic change".
**Legal Rulings and Outcome**
* **Evidentiary Ruling:** At the start of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the Respondent’s Motion in Limine, excluding any evidence or testimony regarding privileged attorney-client communications.
* **Burden of Proof:** The ALJ noted that the burden of proof rested on the Petitioner to prove the claim by a "preponderance of the evidence".
* **Findings:** The Tribunal concluded that the Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that the language change in the Rules and Regulations violated Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs or that such a rule change required a vote by the homeowners.
* **Final Decision:** The ALJ determined the Petitioner failed to satisfy her burden of proof and ordered the petition dismissed with no action required of the Respondent.
**Case Status**
On March 17, 2016, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision because the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory timeframe.
