Case Summary
| Case ID | 18F-H1818023-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2018-04-17 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Michael J. Stoltenberg | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association | Counsel | Lydia Linsmeier, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
CC&R section 2.5
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the alleged CC&R violation, and the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of CC&R section 2.5, and the petition was filed after the four-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-550) expired.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of Community Governing Document regarding pipe installation
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R section 2.5 by installing pipes for a well. Respondent argued that CC&R section 2.5 was inapplicable as it governs additional easements conveyed to a third party, and that the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-550).
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed. Respondent deemed the prevailing party.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-550
- CC&R section 2.5
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-550
- CC&R section 2.5
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1818023-REL Decision – 629162.pdf
Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Stoltenberg vs. Rancho Del Oro HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818023-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). Mr. Stoltenberg alleged that the HOA violated community governing documents (CC&Rs) by installing pipes related to a well through his lot.
The ALJ, Velva Moses-Thompson, dismissed the petitioner’s case in its entirety. The decision was based on two independent and definitive grounds. First, Mr. Stoltenberg failed to meet his burden of proof on the merits of the case; the evidence demonstrated that the pipes were installed within a pre-existing easement and not improperly on his lot, and the specific CC&R section cited was inapplicable. Second, the petition was procedurally barred by Arizona’s four-year statute of limitations, as the installation occurred in the summer of 2013, and the action was filed after this period had expired. Consequently, the Rancho Del Oro HOA was deemed the prevailing party.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This matter was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by Michael J. Stoltenberg against his HOA.
Case Detail
Information
Case Name
Michael J. Stoltenberg, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, Respondent
Case Number
18F-H1818023-REL
Hearing Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Hearing Date
March 28, 2018
Decision Date
April 17, 2018
II. Core Dispute and Allegations
A. Petitioner’s Claim
The central allegation from the petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg, was that the Rancho Del Oro HOA violated the Community Governing Document CC&Rs.
• Specific Allegation: The HOA improperly installed pipes through his lot as part of a well installation project.
• Cited CC&R Violations: The petition focused on violations of CC&R sections 1.13, 1.19, and 2.5. The decision notes that sections 1.13 and 1.19 are definition sections, making section 2.5 the substantive focus of the dispute.
B. Respondent’s Defense Strategy
The Rancho Del Oro HOA presented a multi-faceted defense against the petitioner’s claims, combining a procedural dismissal argument with a substantive rebuttal.
1. Statute of Limitations: The HOA contended the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations established in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-550. They asserted that since the well and pipes were installed in the summer of 2013, the time frame for filing a petition had expired.
2. Inapplicability of CC&R Section 2.5: The HOA argued that this section was not relevant to the situation. They maintained that CC&R section 2.5 pertains specifically to instances where the HOA grants or conveys an additional easement to a third party, which had not occurred.
3. Factual Rebuttal: The HOA asserted that the pipes were installed within an easement that already existed at the time of installation, not on Mr. Stoltenberg’s lot outside of an easement.
III. Adjudicated Findings and Conclusions
The Administrative Law Judge made several key findings of fact and conclusions of law that formed the basis of the final order. The petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg, bore the burden of proving the alleged violations by a “preponderance of the evidence.”
A. Findings of Fact
The ALJ’s decision was based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing. The key findings were:
• Witnesses: The court heard testimony from petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg, HOA community manager Diana Crites, and HOA Board Chairman James Van Sickle.
• Location of Installation: Evidence showed the pipes were installed in an easement that was already in existence at the time of the 2013 installation.
• Failure of Evidentiary Support: The judge explicitly noted, “There was no evidence presented at hearing that the well or the well pipe were installed on Mr. Stoltenberg’s lot.”
B. Conclusions of Law
Based on the evidence and statutes, the ALJ reached the following legal conclusions:
• Statute of Limitations is Applicable: The judge affirmed that ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-550 establishes a four-year statute of limitations for such actions. The installation occurred in 2013, and Mr. Stoltenberg filed his petition after this four-year period had expired, rendering the claim time-barred.
• Interpretation of CC&R 2.5: The judge agreed with the HOA’s interpretation, concluding that CC&R section 2.5 applies to easements granted to a third party by the HOA.
• No Violation Occurred: The “weight of the evidence” demonstrated that the pipes were in an existing easement and the HOA did not grant or convey a new easement to a third party. Therefore, Mr. Stoltenberg failed to establish a violation of CC&R section 2.5.
• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Due to the lack of evidence and the inapplicability of the cited CC&R section, the petitioner failed to prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
IV. Final Order and Implications
Based on the dual findings that the claim was both time-barred and without merit, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decisive order.
• Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition is dismissed.”
• Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
• Next Steps: The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the order’s service, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04 and § 41-1092.09.
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Case No. 18F-H1818023-REL)
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Michael J. Stoltenberg versus the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in two to three complete sentences each, based on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who were the primary parties in case number 18F-H1818023-REL, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, against the Respondent?
3. What two primary legal arguments did the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association present in its defense?
4. According to the judge’s findings, what crucial piece of evidence was not presented at the hearing regarding the location of the well and pipes?
5. What is the statute of limitations cited in this case, and why was it a critical factor in the judge’s decision?
6. How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret Community Governing Document CC&R section 2.5 in relation to the Respondent’s actions?
7. Who has the burden of proof in this type of hearing, and what is the specific standard of proof required to win the case?
8. What was the ultimate Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and who was named the prevailing party?
9. Aside from the statute of limitations, what was the other fundamental reason the Petitioner failed to prove his case?
10. After the judge’s Order was issued on April 17, 2018, what recourse was available to the parties involved?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg, who brought the complaint, and Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, who was defending against the complaint. Mr. Stoltenberg represented himself, while the Homeowners Association was represented by its attorney, Lydia Linsmeier, Esq.
2. Mr. Stoltenberg alleged that the Homeowners Association violated sections 1.13, 1.19, and 2.5 of the Community Governing Document (CC&Rs). The basis of his petition was that the HOA had improperly installed pipes through his lot in connection with a new well.
3. The HOA argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-550, as the installation occurred in 2013, more than four years prior. The HOA also contended that CC&R section 2.5 did not apply because it refers to granting additional easements to a third party, which the HOA did not do.
4. The judge’s “Findings of Fact” state that “There was no evidence presented at hearing that the well or the well pipe were installed on Mr. Stoltenberg’s lot.” This lack of evidence was a key failure in the Petitioner’s case.
5. The statute of limitations cited is ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-550, which requires actions to be brought within four years. This was critical because the well and pipes were installed in the summer of 2013, and Mr. Stoltenberg filed his petition after this four-year period had expired, making his claim untimely.
6. The judge concluded that CC&R section 2.5 specifically applies to easements that are granted or conveyed to a third party by the Respondent. Since the evidence showed the pipes were installed in an existing easement and the HOA did not grant a new one to a third party, the judge found that this section was not violated.
7. The Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg, bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof required is a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must have the most convincing force and be sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue over the other.
8. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition be dismissed. As a result of the dismissal, the Respondent (Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association) was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
9. The Petitioner failed to prove his case because the weight of the evidence showed the HOA did not violate CC&R section 2.5. The evidence indicated the pipes were installed in a pre-existing easement, and the HOA did not grant or convey a new easement to a third party as described in that section.
10. Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B) and A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, the parties had the right to request a rehearing. This request had to be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive essay-style response for each.
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. How did the Petitioner’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, particularly regarding the location of the pipes, contribute to the dismissal of his petition?
2. Discuss the significance of the statute of limitations (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-550) in the judge’s decision. Why are such statutes important in legal proceedings, and how did it provide a separate and independent basis for dismissing the case?
3. Explain the legal reasoning behind the judge’s interpretation of CC&R section 2.5. Why was the distinction between an “existing easement” and granting a “new easement to a third party” a critical factor in the outcome?
4. Imagine you were legal counsel for the Petitioner. Based on the information in the decision, what kind of evidence would have been necessary to successfully prove a violation of the Community Governing Documents and overcome the Respondent’s defenses?
5. Examine the roles of the different entities involved in this dispute: the Petitioner, the Homeowners Association, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Arizona Department of Real Estate. How does the structure of this administrative hearing process provide a mechanism for resolving disputes between homeowners and HOAs?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official (in this case, Velva Moses-Thompson) who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE
The Arizona Administrative Code, a set of state regulations. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof for the hearing.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. Several statutes are cited, including those governing real estate, HOA disputes, and the statute of limitations.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg.
An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are rules set forth in a Community Governing Document that property owners in a planned community or condominium must follow.
Easement
A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific, limited purpose. In this case, it refers to the area where pipes were installed, which the judge found was an “existing easement.”
Findings of Fact
The section of a legal decision that details the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence and testimony presented at a hearing.
Homeowners Association (HOA)
An organization in a planned community (like Rancho Del Oro) that creates and enforces rules for the properties and residents within its jurisdiction.
Notice of Hearing
A formal document issued to inform the parties of the date, time, location, and subject matter of a scheduled legal hearing.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition, seeking a legal remedy. In this case, Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this case. Defined in the document as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statute of Limitations
A law that sets the maximum amount of time that parties involved in a dispute have to initiate legal proceedings. In this case, ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-550 established a four-year limit.
4 Harsh Lessons from a Homeowner’s Failed Lawsuit Against Their HOA
For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like a classic David vs. Goliath story. We’re drawn to tales of the little guy winning against a powerful board, but the reality is that these battles are governed by unforgiving rules, and victory is never guaranteed. While stories of homeowner triumphs are inspiring, it is just as crucial—if not more so—to understand the anatomy of a failure.
This article serves as a cautionary tale, exploring the surprising and impactful lessons from a legal case where a homeowner’s petition against their HOA was decisively dismissed. By understanding the series of avoidable missteps that led to this loss, every homeowner can be better prepared to protect their rights and their property.
——————————————————————————–
1. Time is Not on Your Side: The Statute of Limitations
In the legal world, a “statute of limitations” is a strict deadline for filing a lawsuit. Think of it as a countdown clock that starts the moment a potential legal issue occurs. If you let that clock run out, you forfeit your right to take legal action, no matter how valid your complaint might be.
The first domino to fall in this case was the calendar. The homeowner’s complaint centered on pipes installed in the summer of 2013. The petition, however, wasn’t filed until early 2018, just a few months after the four-year deadline had expired. This wasn’t a case of extreme neglect; it was a critical error of a few months that proved instantly fatal. The lesson here is harsh and urgent: if you believe your HOA has wronged you, you must act promptly. Waiting too long can render your claim legally void before it ever gets a fair hearing.
The specific rule that was applied is a stark reminder of this unforgiving principle:
Actions other than for recovery of real property for which no limitation is otherwise prescribed shall be brought within four years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward.
2. You Have to Prove It: The Burden of Proof
In any legal dispute, the person bringing the complaint—the petitioner—has the “burden of proof.” This means it is entirely your responsibility to present convincing evidence to support your claims. Simply believing something to be true is not enough; you must prove it with cold, hard facts. Here’s where every homeowner should pay close attention.
The case’s foundation crumbled under the simple question: “Where is the proof?” The core of the homeowner’s case was the allegation that the HOA had installed pipes through his lot. This was the central pillar of the entire petition. But when the time came to present evidence, the pillar collapsed. The judge’s decision contained this stunning finding:
There was no evidence presented at hearing that the well or the well pipe were installed on […] lot.
An entire lawsuit can be dismissed if a fundamental claim, no matter how strongly you believe it, cannot be factually proven. Your conviction that you are right means nothing in a hearing without evidence to back it up.
3. Read the Fine Print: The Rules Might Not Mean What You Think They Mean
The homeowner built his argument on a specific part of the Community Governing Documents (CC&Rs), section 2.5, believing it proved the HOA had acted improperly. But the devil is always in the details, and a misinterpretation of those details can be fatal to a case.
The HOA successfully argued that the rule the homeowner cited only applied to situations where the HOA granted a new easement to a third party. In reality, the HOA had simply used an existing easement and had not granted anything to an outside entity. This is a critical distinction. Think of it this way: the homeowner argued the HOA violated the rules for building a new road, but the HOA proved they were simply driving a car on a road that already existed. The homeowner’s argument, while possibly correct about new roads, was irrelevant to the actual situation.
Compounding the error, the homeowner’s initial petition also cited sections of the CC&Rs that were simply definitions, not enforceable rules—a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal documents at the heart of the case.
4. A Double Dismissal: Why the Case Failed on Two Fronts
This case didn’t just lose once; the court effectively ruled the homeowner would have lost twice, on two completely different grounds. This reveals a devastating legal reality: winning requires clearing multiple hurdles, while losing only requires failing at one.
The petition was dismissed for two independent and powerful reasons:
1. The Procedural Knockout: The case was filed too late, violating the four-year statute of limitations. This is a procedural bar, meaning the court couldn’t even consider the facts of the case. It was dead on arrival.
2. The Substantive Failure: The judge made it clear that even if the case had been filed on time, it would have failed on its merits. The homeowner failed to prove his central claim (the pipe location) and fundamentally misinterpreted the CC&Rs.
This “double loss” demonstrates that a successful case against an HOA must be both timely and legally sound. One without the other is a recipe for failure.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Are You Ready for a Fight?
Being frustrated with your HOA is understandable, but that feeling is not enough to win a legal battle. As this case demonstrates, a successful challenge demands timely action, solid evidence, and a precise interpretation of your community’s governing documents. And a loss isn’t just a disappointment; it means your filing fees are lost, and you’ve spent significant time and energy for nothing, with the HOA’s position only becoming more entrenched. This is a financial and emotional trap you must avoid.
Before you decide to take on your HOA, ask yourself: Have you checked the calendar, your property survey, and the fine print?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)
Respondent Side
- Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP - Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP - Diana Crites (community manager)
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Testified for Respondent - James Van Sickle (board member)
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Chairman of the Board; testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
