**Case Title:** *David Carr vs. Sunset Plaza Condo Association* (No. 16F-H1616011-BFS)

**Hearing Proceedings**
The hearing was conducted on August 23, 2016, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona,. The matter was under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

**Key Facts**
Petitioner David Carr alleged that the Respondent, Sunset Plaza Condo Association, violated Article VI, Section 2 of the Association’s By-Laws. The dispute originated when six homeowners submitted a written request for a special meeting to be held on February 13, 2016, or if that date was unacceptable, within thirty days.

The Board denied the request for the February 13 date, noting that an open meeting was already scheduled for February 22, 2016, at which homeowners could discuss agenda items. Despite the Board's decision, nine homeowners gathered on February 13 for what they deemed a special meeting and voted to approve revisions to the By-Laws and Rules. The Board refused to incorporate these changes, prompting Carr to file the petition,.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The primary legal issues were whether the Board violated the By-Laws by failing to schedule the requested special meeting and whether the homeowners had the authority to amend governing documents unilaterally.

* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Carr argued that the Board violated the By-Laws and that a conflict existed between the By-Laws and the Declaration, asserting the Declaration was controlling,. He sought an order compelling the Association to adopt the amendments passed on February 13.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The Association contended that Carr attempted to amend the By-Laws by improper means and requested that Carr be assessed a civil penalty for filing a frivolous petition.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The ALJ applied the standard of preponderance of the evidence.

1. **Alleged By-Law Violation:** The ALJ found the Board did not violate Article VI, Section 2. The homeowners' written request explicitly permitted the meeting to be held within thirty days of February 13. By providing a meeting on February 22, the Board acted within the timeframe requested.
2. **Authority to Amend:** The ALJ determined there was no conflict between the governing documents. The By-Laws and Declaration vest the authority to amend rules and by-laws in the Board, not the homeowners. While rule amendments require homeowner approval to become binding, the initiation and adoption process lies with the Board,. Consequently, the homeowners lacked the authority to validly amend the documents at their February 13 meeting.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ ordered the dismissal of David Carr's petition, ruling that he failed to provide substantial evidence to support his claims,. The Association was deemed the prevailing party.

Regarding the Respondent's request for sanctions, the ALJ denied the civil penalty against Carr. The judge reasoned that although Carr had misconstrued the condominium documents, the Association failed to demonstrate that he had actually violated them.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Real Estate on October 26, 2016.