Case Summary
| Case ID | 18F-H1818032-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2018-08-22 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Thomas Shedden |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Dina R. Galassini | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc. | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner’s petition for rehearing, concluding that the OAH has the authority, pursuant to statute and precedent, to resolve disputes involving the interpretation of condominium documents and related regulating statutes, rejecting Petitioner's constitutional claims regarding separation of powers. Respondent's request for attorney's fees was denied.
Why this result: Petitioner's argument that the original ALJ decision was contrary to law due to separation of powers violation was dismissed, as the OAH confirmed its statutory authority (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) to interpret condominium documents and regulating statutes.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Respondent Association correctly posted owner assessments for the 2018 parking lot budget
Petitioner sought rehearing arguing the ALJ lacked constitutional authority (separation of powers) to interpret condominium documents (contracts) and statutory definitions of common/limited common elements (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202) related to the posting of the 2018 parking lot budget assessment.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed. Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202
- Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
- Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass'n v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs., 242 Ariz. 62, 67, 392 P.3d 506, 511 (App. 2017)
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202
- Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
- Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass'n v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs., 242 Ariz. 62, 67, 392 P.3d 506, 511 (App. 2017)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
- ARIZ. CONST. Art. 3
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1818032-REL Decision – 636950.pdf
18F-H1818032-REL Decision – 655375.pdf
Briefing Document: Galassini v. Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc. (Case No. 18F-H1818032-REL-RHG)
Executive Summary
This document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818032-REL-RHG, which dismissed a petition filed by Dina R. Galassini against the Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc. The central conflict revolved around the jurisdictional authority of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The Petitioner, Ms. Galassini, argued that the OAH, as part of the executive branch, violated the constitutional separation of powers by interpreting private condominium documents, a power she claimed was reserved exclusively for the judicial branch.
The ALJ, Thomas Shedden, rejected this argument and dismissed the petition as a matter of law. The decision affirms that the OAH is statutorily empowered by Arizona Revised Statutes to hear disputes concerning alleged violations of condominium documents. The ALJ’s rationale rests on established legal precedent, citing Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov to confirm that condominium documents are a contract and Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass’n v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs. to support an agency’s authority to take actions reasonably implied by its governing statutes. Consequently, the Petitioner’s core constitutional challenge was deemed “unfounded,” leading to the dismissal of her petition. While the petition was dismissed, the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees was denied.
1. Case Background and Procedural History
The case involves a dispute between a condominium owner and a condominium association, brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Dina R. Galassini
◦ Respondent: Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc.
• Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
• Presiding Judge: Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge
• Decision Date: August 22, 2018
The matter arrived before Judge Shedden following a series of procedural steps initiated after an original ALJ decision.
• June 26, 2018: The Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing with the Department of Real Estate.
• July 20, 2018: The Department of Real Estate issued an Order Granting Rehearing, based on the reasons outlined in the Petitioner’s request.
• August 15, 2018: The Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate Rehearing, arguing the case could be resolved as a matter of law.
• August 21, 2018: The Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Respondent’s motion.
2. Core Dispute: Petitioner’s Jurisdictional Challenge
The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing was founded on a direct constitutional challenge to the authority of the Administrative Law Judge. The underlying substantive issue concerned the association’s handling of “owner assessments for the 2018 parking lot budget,” which turned on the interpretation of “common element” versus “limited common element.”
Petitioner’s Arguments
• Violation of Separation of Powers: The Petitioner contended that the original ALJ decision was “contrary to law” because it involved the interpretation of private contracts (the condominium documents). She argued this function is reserved exclusively for the judicial branch under Arizona’s Constitution, Article 3 (Separation of Powers).
• Due Process Violation: By interpreting the contract, the ALJ allegedly committed a “due process violation.” The Petitioner stated, “For the ALJ to definitively interpret actual contracts between two private parties is a due process violation (separation of powers).”
• Improper Delegation of Power: The Petitioner claimed the ALJ’s action “redistributed interpreted power from the Judiciary to the Executive and this is a congressional encroachment on my rights.”
3. The Administrative Law Judge’s Legal Rationale and Decision
The ALJ agreed with the Respondent that the case could be resolved as a matter of law, focusing entirely on the jurisdictional question raised by the Petitioner. The decision systematically refutes the Petitioner’s separation of powers argument by outlining the OAH’s legal authority.
Statutory Authority
The decision establishes the OAH’s jurisdiction through Arizona state law:
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11: This statute describes the administrative process for referring disputes between owners and condominium associations to the OAH.
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A): This section specifically grants the OAH authority to conduct hearings for alleged “violations of condominium documents … or violations of the statutes that regulate condominiums….”
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202: The decision notes that analyzing the Petitioner’s claim inherently requires interpreting definitions found in the statutes that regulate condominiums, such as this section defining “common element” and “limited common element.”
Precedent from Case Law
The ALJ grounded the OAH’s interpretive authority in two key Arizona appellate court decisions:
1. Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007): This case is cited to establish the legal principle that “the condominium documents are a contract between the parties.” By defining the documents as a contract, the decision links the dispute directly to the type of documents the OAH is empowered to review.
2. Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass’n v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., 242 Ariz. 62, 392 P.3d 506 (App. 2017): This case is cited to support the broader principle of administrative authority. The ruling states, “[I]t is the law of this state that an agency may” take such action “which may be reasonably implied from ‘a consideration of the statutory scheme as a whole.’” This supports the conclusion that the OAH’s authority to hear disputes over condominium documents implies the authority to interpret them.
Conclusion of the Court
Based on the cited statutes and case law, the ALJ concluded that the OAH possesses the necessary authority to interpret both the condominium documents and the relevant state statutes. Therefore, the Petitioner’s central argument that the original decision was “contrary to law” was declared “unfounded,” and dismissing the matter was deemed appropriate.
4. Final Orders and Directives
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following final orders on August 22, 2018:
Outcome
Petitioner’s Petition
Dismissed
Respondent’s Request for Attorney’s Fees
Denied
The decision also included the following legally mandated notices for the parties:
• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties as a result of the rehearing, per ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B).
• Appeal Rights: A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five (35) days from the date the order was served. The appeal process is prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. title 12, chapter 7, article 6 and § 12-904(A).
Study Guide: Galassini v. Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1818032-REL-RHG, issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It is designed to assess comprehension of the case’s key arguments, legal precedents, and procedural history.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the source document.
1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case and state the official case number.
2. What was the Petitioner’s core legal argument for requesting a rehearing, as detailed in her filing on June 26, 2018?
3. On what grounds did the Respondent file a Motion to Vacate Rehearing on August 15, 2018?
4. According to the Petitioner’s Response, what was the specific issue that the Department’s Commissioner had ordered the rehearing to address?
5. Which Arizona Revised Statute section is cited as describing the process for hearings on disputes between owners and condominium associations?
6. To resolve the Petitioner’s claim, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) needed to interpret the definitions of what two key terms from the Arizona Revised Statutes?
7. What legal precedent was cited in the decision to establish that condominium documents are considered a contract between the parties?
8. What was the final decision issued by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden on August 22, 2018, regarding the Petitioner’s petition and the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees?
9. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B), what is the legal status of an administrative law judge order that has been issued as the result of a rehearing?
10. What specific steps must a party take to appeal this order, including the timeframe and the court where the appeal must be filed?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner is Dina R. Galassini, and the Respondent is Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc. The official case number is 18F-H1818032-REL-RHG.
2. The Petitioner argued that the original Administrative Law Judge’s decision was contrary to law because it violated the principle of separation of powers. She claimed that by interpreting contracts between private parties, the ALJ, part of the Executive branch, encroached upon the power of the Judiciary, resulting in a due process violation.
3. The Respondent argued that the matter could be resolved as a matter of law. This argument was based on ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01, which governs administrative hearings for condominium disputes.
4. The Petitioner asserted in her Response that the Department’s Commissioner had ordered a rehearing specifically on the issue of whether the Respondent Association had correctly posted owner assessments for the 2018 parking lot budget.
5. ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11, specifically section 32-2199.01(A), is cited as governing the process. It states that hearings are conducted for alleged “violations of condominium documents … or violations of the statutes that regulate condominiums.”
6. To analyze the Petitioner’s claim, the ALJ needed to interpret the definitions of “common element” and “limited common element.” These definitions are found in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1202.
7. The case Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007) was cited to support the legal principle that condominium documents (like CC&Rs) constitute a contract between the parties involved.
8. Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed. He further ordered that the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees be denied.
9. According to the statute, an administrative law judge order issued as a result of a rehearing is binding on the parties.
10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. title 12, chapter 7, article 6. The appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the Petitioner’s “separation of powers” argument. Explain why she believed the ALJ’s decision constituted a due process violation and a congressional encroachment on her rights, and discuss how the final decision legally refuted this claim.
2. Detail the legal basis and precedents cited by the Administrative Law Judge to establish the authority of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Explain how ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01(A) and the cases Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov and Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass’n v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs. were used to justify the OAH’s jurisdiction in this matter.
3. Trace the procedural history of this case from the Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision. Include key dates, motions filed by both parties, and the reasoning behind the Department of Real Estate’s initial decision to grant a rehearing.
4. Discuss the relationship between condominium documents and state statutes as presented in this decision. How does the ruling define condominium documents, and what authority does it grant the OAH in interpreting both these documents and the statutes that regulate condominiums?
5. Based on the final decision and the provided notice, explain the legal options available to the Petitioner following the dismissal of her petition. What specific steps must be taken to pursue an appeal, and what legal standard is established by ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B) regarding the finality of the ALJ’s order?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Thomas Shedden of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Common Element
A term defined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1202. The interpretation of this term was central to the Petitioner’s original dispute.
Condominium Documents
The governing documents of a condominium association (e.g., CC&Rs). The decision establishes these as a contract between the parties, citing Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov.
Department of Real Estate
The state agency that issued the Order Granting Rehearing in this matter on July 20, 2018.
Due Process Violation
An alleged infringement of legal rights. The Petitioner claimed this occurred when the ALJ interpreted a contract between private parties.
Judicial Review
The legal process by which a party can appeal an administrative order to a court. The decision specifies this must be done by filing with the superior court within 35 days.
Limited Common Element
A term defined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1202. The interpretation of this term was central to the Petitioner’s original dispute.
Motion to Vacate Rehearing
A formal request filed by the Respondent on August 15, 2018, arguing that the case could be resolved as a matter of law.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
The state office where disputes between owners and condominium associations are referred for hearings, as per ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.
Petitioner
The party initiating a legal petition. In this case, Dina R. Galassini.
Request for Rehearing
A formal request filed by the Petitioner on June 26, 2018, after an initial decision, which was granted by the Department of Real Estate.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc.
Separation of Powers
A constitutional principle cited by the Petitioner. She argued that only the judicial branch, not the executive branch (where the OAH resides), can make decisions that legally bind private parties.
4 Surprising Legal Lessons from a Condo Parking Lot Dispute
Introduction: The Anatomy of a Neighborhood Fight
Disputes with a Condominium or Homeowner’s Association are a common, and often frustrating, part of modern life. But what happens when a seemingly minor conflict over assessments for the 2018 parking lot budget escalates into a direct challenge to the power of the state?
The case of Dina R. Galassini vs. the Plaza Waterfront Condominium Owners Association, Inc. did just that. This neighborhood fight quickly grew to question fundamental legal principles, revealing some counter-intuitive truths about the power and jurisdiction of administrative agencies. The final court decision provides a masterclass in administrative law, a powerful, court-like system designed for efficiency that operates with more flexibility and authority than most people realize. Here are the top surprising takeaways from the final ruling.
Takeaway 1: Administrative Agencies Can Act Like Courts
At the heart of her appeal, Ms. Galassini made a powerful constitutional argument: she believed that only a judge in the judicial branch—not an administrator in the executive branch—had the authority to interpret a private contract like her condominium documents.
In her “Request for Rehearing,” she argued forcefully:
The decision by the administrative law judge (ALJ) is contrary to law, and the decision that was handed down to me only belongs in the judicial branch. Regarding what is a common element or a limited common element (see Exhibit C) should only be decided upon by a judge. For the ALJ to definitively interpret actual contracts between two private parties is a due process violation (separation of powers). In doing so the ALJ redistributed interpreted power from the Judiciary to the Executive and this is a congressional encroachment on my rights. According to Arizona’s Constitution Article 3, Separation of Powers—only the judicial branch can make decisions that make decisions that bind private parties as law.
The surprising outcome was that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected this argument entirely. The judge found that the Office of Administrative Hearings was specifically empowered by Arizona statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01(A)) to handle disputes involving “violations of condominium documents.” Creating specialized administrative bodies like this is a common legislative strategy. It provides expert, efficient resolution for specific types of disputes, preventing the judicial courts from being overwhelmed.
Takeaway 2: Your Condo Agreement is a Legally Binding Contract
The ALJ’s authority to reject such a powerful constitutional claim hinged on a foundational question: what exactly are a condo’s governing documents in the eyes of the law? The answer is what gives administrative bodies their power in these disputes.
The decision affirms that these documents are not just community guidelines, but a formal, legally binding contract between the unit owner and the association. To support this, the judge referenced the legal precedent set in Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, which established that “the condominium documents are a contract between the parties.”
This is a critical takeaway because by defining these governing documents as a contract, it provides the legal foundation for an administrative body, like the Office of Administrative Hearings, to step in and resolve disputes using principles of contract law.
Takeaway 3: An Agency’s Power Can Be “Reasonably Implied”
Another surprising lesson from the decision is that a government agency’s authority doesn’t always have to be spelled out word-for-word for every possible action it might take.
To make a broader point about administrative law, the judge cited a separate case, Ariz. Cannabis Nurses Ass’n v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs. The principle from that case is that an agency can take actions that “may be reasonably implied from ‘a consideration of the statutory scheme as a whole.’”
This concept is crucial for government to function. Legislatures cannot possibly foresee and explicitly write laws for every conceivable scenario an agency might face. This doctrine of “implied power” allows agencies the flexibility to adapt and act effectively within the spirit of the law, fulfilling their duties based on the overall purpose of the statutes they enforce.
Takeaway 4: Winning a Rehearing Isn’t Winning the War
The case’s procedure offers a fascinating lesson in legal strategy. The Department of Real Estate initially granted the petitioner’s request for a rehearing, a decision made, crucially, “for the reasons outlined in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing.” This shows the Department initially found her legal argument about separation of powers compelling enough to warrant a second look.
However, the outcome was deeply ironic. Instead of re-arguing the facts, the respondent (the Condo Association) “filed a Motion to Vacate Rehearing, arguing that… this matter can be resolved as a matter of law” (meaning no facts were in dispute, only the interpretation of the statutes and contracts).
The ALJ agreed. The petitioner, by winning the rehearing, had inadvertently given the respondent a perfect platform to argue the case on purely legal grounds—the respondent’s strength. The rehearing forced the core jurisdictional issue to the forefront, leading directly to the dismissal of the petitioner’s case. It’s a stark reminder that a procedural victory doesn’t guarantee a final win.
Conclusion: The Law in Your Daily Life
Born from a dispute over a parking lot, this single case reveals the hidden legal machinery designed to resolve specific conflicts efficiently, without overburdening the traditional court system. It demonstrates how everyday disagreements can touch upon complex principles of constitutional power, contract law, and implied statutory authority. From a simple assessment, we see a system where administrative bodies act with court-like power, a power built upon the contractual nature of community rules and the flexibility of implied authority. It’s a powerful reminder of the intricate legal frameworks operating just beneath the surface of our daily lives.
What hidden legal complexities might be shaping the rules and agreements in your own life?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Dina R. Galassini (petitioner)
Respondent Side
- Jim Flood (board member)
- Roger Isaacs (witness)
- Gary Pedersen (witness, statutory agent)
Neutral Parties
- Jenna Clark (ALJ)
- Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
- Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Other Participants
- Peter Saiia (observer)
- Suzanne Isaacs (observer)
- Paul Blessing (observer)
- Felicia Del Sol (unknown)
