**Case Summary: Jon Paul Holyoak v. Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 18F-H1818031-REL (Consolidated for hearing with 18F-H1818030-REL)
**Hearing Date:** May 2, 2018
**Administrative Law Judge:** Tammy L. Eigenheer

**Overview and Proceedings**
Petitioner Jon Paul Holyoak filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that the Respondent, Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association, improperly cited him for violating the community’s Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The dispute involved an additional freestanding mailbox located on the Petitioner's property. This matter was consolidated with a separate petition regarding landscaping issues (Case No. 18F-H1818030-REL).

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Notices of Violation:** The Respondent issued multiple notices regarding the mailbox. An October 2017 "Courtesy Notice" cited CC&R Section 27 (maintenance), while a December 2017 notice and a January 2018 "Notice of Violation" cited CC&R Section 12 (building restrictions).
* **Fines:** The Respondent imposed a $50 fine in the January notice based on the alleged violation of Section 12.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Holyoak testified that the freestanding mailbox was present when he purchased the home in 2012 and that he received a statement at closing indicating no known covenant violations existed. He further argued that United States Postal Service policy required him to maintain the freestanding mailbox for delivery.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** A board member testified that the freestanding mailbox was an "eyesore," unapproved, and insecure. The Respondent argued they had authority to enforce architectural consistency and maintenance standards.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of the Petitioner regarding the mailbox dispute based on the following key points:
1. **Inconsistent Citations:** The ALJ noted it was "problematic" that the Respondent relied on three different CC&R sections (27, 12, and later 8) across four notices.
2. **Inapplicability of Section 12:** The fine was imposed under Section 12, which restricts the erection of a "building" to one single-family dwelling and garage. The ALJ ruled that the plain language of Section 12 relates to buildings and "cannot be read to apply to Petitioner’s mailbox". Consequently, the Respondent violated the CC&Rs by imposing a fine under this section.
3. **Pre-existing Condition:** The Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mailbox existed upon his purchase in 2012 and that he was notified there were no known violations at that time. Therefore, the Respondent's argument regarding the lack of architectural approval was without merit.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
* **Prevailing Party:** The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in Case No. 18F-H1818031-REL.
* **Award:** The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
* **Correction of Record:** A subsequent *Order Nunc Pro Tunc* corrected a clerical error in the original decision to clarify that while the petition regarding the mailbox was successful, the separate petition regarding the landscaping (18F-H1818