Case Summary
| Case ID | 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2018-01-03 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Diane Mihalsky |
| Outcome | neutral |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Brian C. Herbert | Counsel | Jeffrey D. Harris |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association | Counsel | Stewart F. Salwin |
Alleged Violations
A.A.C. R2-19-111(3)
Outcome Summary
The case was resolved by settlement between the parties before adjudication, leading to the vacation of the scheduled hearing and remand to the ADRE.
Key Issues & Findings
Resolution by Settlement
The parties reached a settlement, resulting in a motion to vacate the hearing on the merits.
Orders: ORDER VACATING HEARING; matter remanded to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for further action.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: settlement
- A.A.C. R2-19-111(3)
Analytics Highlights
- A.A.C. R2-19-111(3)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817002-REL Decision – 584947.pdf
18F-H1817002-REL Decision – 609956.pdf
Briefing on Case No. 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG: Herbert v. Blackstone at Vistancia
Executive Summary
This briefing details the resolution of case number 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG, a dispute between Petitioner Brian C. Herbert and Respondent Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association. The central development is that the parties reached a settlement, leading their attorneys to jointly file a motion to vacate the scheduled hearing. On January 3, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings granted this motion. The hearing scheduled for January 5, 2018, was officially vacated, and the case was remanded to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for subsequent action.
Case Overview
• Case Number: 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG
• Forum: The Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
• Petitioner: Brian C. Herbert
• Respondent: Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge
Key Development: Settlement and Hearing Vacation
The primary catalyst for the case’s disposition was a mutual agreement between the parties.
• Settlement Reached: The document explicitly states that the parties “have reached a settlement.”
• Joint Motion: Following the settlement, the attorneys for both the Petitioner and the Respondent filed a joint motion to vacate the hearing on the merits of the case.
• Hearing Canceled: The order formally vacates the “continued hearing that had been scheduled on January 5, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.”
Judicial Orders and Disposition
On January 3, 2018, Judge Diane Mihalsky issued two definitive orders that concluded the proceedings at the Office of Administrative Hearings:
1. Order to Vacate: The first order vacates the hearing scheduled for January 5, 2018. The document states: “IT IS ORDERED vacating the continued hearing that had been scheduled on January 5, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.”
2. Order to Remand: The second order remands, or sends back, the matter to a different state body for final processing. It specifies: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter under A.A.C. R2-19-111(3) to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for further action.”
Parties and Legal Representation
The following table details the key individuals and firms involved in the legal matter.
Name/Entity
Legal Counsel
Law Firm
Contact Information
Petitioner
Brian C. Herbert
Jeffrey D. Harris, Esq.
Titus Brueckner & Levine, PLC
[email protected]
8355 East Hartford Drive, Suite 200, Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Respondent
Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association
Stewart F. Salwin, Esq.
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
[email protected]
[email protected]
1400 E. Southern Ave., Suite 400, Tempe, AZ 85282
Administrative Details
• Order Date: The order was issued on January 3, 2018.
• Transmission: The document was transmitted on January 3, 2018, by “M.Aguirre” via mail, email, or facsimile.
• Recipients of the Order:
◦ Arizona Department of Real Estate:
▪ Judy Lowe, Commissioner
▪ Additional staff: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
◦ Legal Counsel: All attorneys listed in the table above.
Study Guide: Case No. 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG
This guide is designed to review the key facts, entities, and procedures detailed in the legal document concerning the case of Brian C. Herbert v. Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Short Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information found in the provided source document.
1. Who were the two primary parties involved in case number 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG?
2. What was the specific legal action taken by the Administrative Law Judge on January 3, 2018?
3. What was the stated reason for vacating the hearing?
4. On what date and at what time was the original hearing scheduled to take place before it was canceled?
5. Identify the Administrative Law Judge who signed the order and the administrative body she represents.
6. Following the order to vacate the hearing, to which government agency was the matter sent for further action?
7. Which attorney and law firm represented the Petitioner in this case?
8. Identify the attorneys and the law firm that represented the Respondent.
9. What is the full title of the legal document, and what is its case number?
10. Besides the legal representatives for the Petitioner and Respondent, to which organization were copies of the order transmitted?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The two primary parties were the Petitioner, Brian C. Herbert, and the Respondent, Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association.
2. The Administrative Law Judge issued an order vacating the continued hearing that had been scheduled. The order also remanded the matter to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for further action.
3. The hearing was vacated because the attorneys for both the Petitioner and the Respondent filed a motion to vacate, indicating that the two parties had reached a settlement.
4. The canceled hearing had been scheduled to take place on January 5, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.
5. The order was signed by Diane Mihalsky, an Administrative Law Judge. She represents the Office of Administrative Hearings, located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona.
6. The matter was remanded to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The order was transmitted to the department’s Commissioner, Judy Lowe, and several other individuals within the department.
7. The Petitioner, Brian C. Herbert, was represented by Jeffrey D. Harris, Esq. of the law firm Titus Brueckner & Levine, PLC.
8. The Respondent, Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association, was represented by Stewart F. Salwin, Esq. and Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, Esq. from the law firm Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC.
9. The full title of the document is “ORDER VACATING HEARING.” The case number is No. 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG.
10. Copies of the order were transmitted to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. Specifically, they were sent to Commissioner Judy Lowe and six other email addresses associated with the department.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper synthesis of the information in the document. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt.
1. Describe the procedural history of this case as presented in the order. Detail the sequence of events that led to the issuance of this order and explain the mandated next step for the case.
2. Analyze the roles and relationships of all named individuals and entities in the document. Discuss the functions of the Petitioner, Respondent, their respective legal counsel, the Administrative Law Judge, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Arizona Department of Real Estate within the context of this legal matter.
3. Explain the legal significance of a “settlement” in the context of this case. How did the settlement between Brian C. Herbert and the Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association directly influence the actions taken by the Office of Administrative Hearings?
4. Detail the formal communication process for this legal order. Identify who issued the order, the date of issuance, the methods of transmission, and the complete list of recipients, including their professional titles and affiliations where provided.
5. Based on the order’s text, discuss the legal authority under which the case was remanded. What does the citation of A.A.C. R2-19-111(3) and the subsequent remand to the Department of Real Estate suggest about the jurisdiction and procedural relationship between the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
A.A.C.
An abbreviation for the Arizona Administrative Code, a set of state regulations. In this document, it is cited as A.A.C. R2-19-111(3) as the legal basis for remanding the case.
Administrative Law Judge
An official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over hearings at an administrative agency (the Office of Administrative Hearings) and makes legal rulings.
Attorney
A legal professional representing a client. The document lists Stewart F. Salwin, Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, and Jeffrey D. Harris as attorneys for the parties.
An abbreviation for “Esquire,” a courtesy title commonly used for practicing attorneys in the United States.
Hearing
A formal proceeding before a judge or administrative body to resolve a legal dispute. In this case, the hearing scheduled for January 5, 2018, was vacated.
Matter
A legal case or issue being considered by a court or administrative body.
Motion
A formal request made by a party to a judge or administrative body for an order or ruling. Here, the parties filed a “motion to vacate the hearing.”
Office of Administrative Hearings
The state agency in Phoenix, Arizona, responsible for conducting hearings for other state agencies. It is the body that issued this order.
A formal written direction from a judge or administrative body. This document is titled an “ORDER VACATING HEARING.”
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, the Petitioner is Brian C. Herbert.
Remand
To send a case back to a lower court or another body for further action. This matter was remanded to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who responds to the legal action. In this case, the Respondent is the Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association.
Settlement
An agreement reached between opposing parties in a legal dispute, resolving the issue without a full hearing or trial. The parties in this case reached a settlement, leading to the motion to vacate.
Vacate
To cancel or make void a scheduled legal proceeding. The order explicitly vacates the hearing that was scheduled for January 5, 2018.
What a Single Page of Legalese Reveals About How ConflictsReallyEnd
We’ve all seen it on screen: the dramatic courtroom showdown. A lawyer points an accusatory finger, a witness breaks down on the stand, and a judge slams a gavel to seal a dramatic verdict. It’s compelling television, but it bears little resemblance to how most conflicts in our society actually end. The real story is often much quieter, hidden in plain sight within documents that most of us would dismiss as bureaucratic fine print.
This single page, an “Order Vacating Hearing” filed away in a public record, is more than just paper. This seemingly inert document upends the Hollywood version of justice and reveals three powerful truths about how our society actually functions. It’s a window into the hidden world of negotiation, procedure, and resolution that keeps our civil society from grinding to a halt.
By closely examining this order, we can uncover a story not of courtroom battles, but of quiet compromise and the powerful machinery of resolution.
——————————————————————————–
1. The Real Drama Happens Off-Screen
The most pivotal moment in this legal dispute wasn’t a climactic courtroom argument; it was an event that happened entirely behind the scenes, just before the curtain was set to rise.
An order signed by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky shows that a formal hearing was scheduled for January 5, 2018. But the order canceling that hearing was issued on January 3, 2018—a mere two days before the parties were due in court. This two-day window is where the real lawyering happens. Imagine the flurry of phone calls, the redlined settlement drafts exchanged via email, and the strategic calculations of risk versus reward that led both sides to step back from the brink. This underscores a fundamental reality of the legal system: the primary goal is often resolution, not a zero-sum victory, in order to avoid the high cost of litigation, the uncertainty of a judge’s ruling, and the immense investment of time and emotional energy.
——————————————————————————–
2. Every Dispute is a Cog in a Larger Machine
While this case involved a dispute between an individual and a community association, the document reveals a surprisingly large cast of characters. Resolving the matter required the involvement of a complex network of official entities and professionals.
A quick scan of the order shows just how many parties are plugged into this single conflict:
• The Petitioner: Brian C. Herbert
• The Respondent: Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association
• The Adjudicating Body: The Office of Administrative Hearings
• The Law Firms: Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC, and Titus Brueckner & Levine, PLC
• The Regulatory Body: The Arizona Department of Real Estate
But the story doesn’t end with a simple settlement between two parties. The order states the matter is being “remanded… to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for further action.” From a procedural standpoint, this is significant. Remanding means sending the case back to the original agency that handled it. What this signals is that a private agreement doesn’t necessarily end the state’s interest. The regulatory body still has a role to play, ensuring the settlement aligns with public rules or addressing any remaining compliance issues.
The document’s final page reinforces this, showing it was formally transmitted not just to the lawyers, but to a list of at least six different officials at the Arizona Department of Real Estate, ensuring the entire regulatory apparatus was kept in the loop. This machinery, while complex, ensures that even a local conflict is handled within a structured, accountable system of oversight.
——————————————————————————–
3. The Most Powerful Words Aren’t in the Verdict
We often search for resolution in a judge’s lengthy, detailed ruling, full of complex legal reasoning and citations. But in this case, the single phrase that resolves the entire matter is disarmingly simple. It’s a quiet declaration of fact, not a thundering judgment.
The order states that the hearing is being vacated for one direct reason:
…because they have reached a settlement.
This short clause is far more than procedural boilerplate; it represents a fundamental shift in power. A verdict is an imposed resolution, where a third party dictates the ending. A settlement, however, is an act of agency and control. It signifies that the parties have chosen to take the outcome out of a judge’s hands and write their own ending. These six words represent the power of negotiated resolution over imposed confrontation—a conclusion built by the parties themselves, who chose compromise to avoid the risks and costs of continued conflict.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Story in the Silence
A single, seemingly mundane administrative order tells a profound story about how our society manages conflict. It reveals that the real work often happens not in a noisy courtroom, but in a quiet agreement. It shows that even small disputes are handled by a vast, interconnected system designed to ensure fairness and order. And it reminds us that the most powerful outcome is often the one achieved through mutual consent.
This perceived lack of drama is not a bug in the system; it is the core feature of a stable civil society. The quiet, predictable processes and behind-the-scenes compromises are what we value over chaotic and uncertain public battles. The next time you encounter a piece of official jargon or a formal notice, what hidden story of conflict and resolution might be waiting to be discovered?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Paul Herbert (petitioner)
Original petitioner in the related docket (18F-H1817002-REL); conceded he is the beneficiary, not the owner/trustee. - Brian C. Herbert (petitioner)
Petitioner in docket 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG; identified as the trustee of the trust that owns the property.
Neutral Parties
- Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge who issued the Recommended Order of Dismissal. - Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge who issued the Order Vacating Hearing due to settlement. - Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
ADRE - M. Aguirre (staff)
Listed in electronic transmission. - LDettorre (staff)
ADRE
Electronic transmission recipient. - AHansen (staff)
ADRE
Electronic transmission recipient. - djones (staff)
ADRE
Electronic transmission recipient. - DGardner (staff)
ADRE
Electronic transmission recipient. - ncano (staff)
ADRE
Electronic transmission recipient.
Other Participants
- Stewart F. Salwin (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC - Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC - Jeffrey D. Harris (attorney)
Titus Brueckner & Levine, PLC
