Case Summary
| Case ID | 19F-H1918028-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2019-05-01 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Diane Mihalsky |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Patricia Wiercinski | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. | Counsel | Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Outcome Summary
The ALJ denied and dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The documents requested (an email string among Board members) were informal communications and were not considered official records of the association because the Board never took formal action on the incident.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Board created or possessed any official documents related to the incident that they failed to produce, as the emails were deemed private, informal communications rather than official records.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to produce association records (un-redacted email string)
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce official documents, specifically an un-redacted email string among Board members concerning an incident where Petitioner's husband allegedly harassed potential property buyers.
Orders: Petition dismissed because the documents sought (un-redacted emails) were informal communications, not official records of the association required to be produced under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918028-REL-RHG Decision – 705044.pdf
19F-H1918028-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918028-REL/684134.pdf
Briefing: Wiercincthe ki v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Patricia Wiercinski (“Petitioner”) and the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s demand for association records related to a June 19, 2017, incident where her husband, Wayne Coates, allegedly accosted and verbally abused potential buyers of a neighboring property, causing the sale to fail.
The Petitioner filed a claim alleging the Respondent violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce documents related to the Board of Directors’ handling of the incident. The case evolved through two distinct phases:
1. Initial Hearing (January 2019): The Petitioner argued that because a quorum of the Board discussed the incident via email, they were required to create official records (e.g., minutes of a formal decision), which were not produced. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied this petition, ruling that informal email discussions among volunteer board members do not constitute “official Board business” requiring formal action or record-keeping.
2. Rehearing (April 2019): After being granted a rehearing, the Petitioner changed her legal theory. She argued that the email chain itself constituted an official association record and demanded that the Respondent produce a fully un-redacted version. The Respondent maintained the emails were private communications provided as a courtesy and that names were redacted due to Mr. Coates’ documented history of “bullying and intimidating people.”
Conclusion: The ALJ dismissed the petition again, affirming the initial ruling. The Judge concluded that the email chain was not an official “record of the association.” Consequently, the Respondent was under no statutory obligation to produce it, let alone provide an un-redacted copy. The Judge found the Respondent’s decision to redact names was “not unreasonable” given the circumstances.
Case Background and Procedural History
The Parties
Name/Entity
Patricia Wiercinski
Petitioner; homeowner and member of the Respondent association.
Wayne Coates
Petitioner’s husband; central figure in the alleged incident.
Long Meadow Ranch East POA, Inc.
Respondent; the Homeowners’ Association (HOA) for the development.
Michael “Mike” Olson
President of the Respondent’s Board of Directors.
Gregg Arthur
Director on the Respondent’s Board; also a realtor.
Joe Zielinski
Director on the Respondent’s Board.
Kathy Andrews
Community Manager for the Respondent, employed by Hoamco.
John Allen
An HOA member who was attempting to sell his lot in June 2017.
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Office of Administrative Hearings.
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.
Counsel for the Respondent, Goodman Law Group.
The Precipitating Incident (June 19, 2017)
On or about June 19, 2017, potential buyers, along with their builder, architect, and son, were visiting a lot for sale on Puntenney Rd. owned by John Allen. The lot was located across the street from the residence of Patricia Wiercinski and Wayne Coates. An incident occurred where Mr. Coates allegedly emerged from his home and confronted the visitors. According to emails later provided, Mr. Coates was “belligerent and cursing,” “verbally abusive,” and exhibited “extreme aggressive behavior,” telling the party that nothing was for sale and they needed to leave immediately. The potential buyers subsequently withdrew their interest in the lot, explicitly citing the confrontation.
Legal Proceedings
• October 18, 2018: Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce records of its deliberations and actions regarding the June 2017 incident.
• January 10, 2019: An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky.
• January 22, 2019: The ALJ issues a decision denying the petition.
• Post-January 2019: Petitioner requests a rehearing, alleging misconduct by the judge. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the request.
• April 22, 2019: A rehearing is conducted.
• May 1, 2019: The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing the petition.
The Central Evidence: The Email Communications
The primary evidence in the case was an email chain from June 2017 that the Respondent voluntarily produced to the Petitioner, with the names of non-members (the potential buyers and their real estate agent) redacted. The communications reveal the immediate aftermath and concern surrounding the incident.
Key Excerpts from the Emails
• From a Potential Purchaser (June 19, 2017):
• Formal Account from Potential Purchasers (June 20, 2017):
• From the Real Estate Agent (June 20, 2017):
• From Board Director Gregg Arthur (June 20, 2017):
• From Board Director Joe Zielinski (June 20, 2017):
Analysis of Legal Arguments and Rulings
Petitioner’s Arguments
1. Initial Argument: The Petitioner contended that the email discussion among a quorum of the Board legally constituted an informal meeting to discuss association business. As such, the Board was required to memorialize its decision, even a decision to take no action, in official records like meeting minutes. The failure to produce such records was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
2. Rehearing Argument: Shifting her legal theory, the Petitioner argued that the email chain itself was an “official record of the association.” She claimed a right to an un-redacted copy, stating that she and Mr. Coates “had a right to know who was accusing Mr. Coates of belligerence.”
Respondent’s Defense
• Nature of Communications: The Respondent argued the emails were informal, private communications on personal servers between volunteer board members who are also neighbors. They were not official records kept in the course of association business.
• Lack of Formal Action: The Board never voted, met in an executive or open session, or took any official action regarding the incident. Testimony confirmed that only two of the board members replied to the initial email.
• Absence of Authority: The Respondent’s position was that the incident, while serious, was a personal dispute between neighbors and did not violate the association’s CC&Rs or bylaws. Therefore, the Board had no authority or jurisdiction to take official enforcement action.
• Justification for Redactions: Board President Mike Olson testified that names were redacted because “Mr. Coates had a history of bullying and intimidating people.” This was done to protect the potential buyers and their agent from potential harassment.
Administrative Law Judge’s Determinations
The ALJ’s conclusions were consistent across both decisions, finding decisively in favor of the Respondent.
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
• “Official Records” Defined: The ALJ drew a clear distinction between informal discussion and official business. The ruling stated: “…the mere fact that a quorum of Board members may discuss a topic does not make it official Board business, especially if they do not end up taking any action to make a matter board business.”
• No Obligation to Create Records: The Judge found no statute requiring an HOA board to create a formal written record about topics they discuss informally but ultimately take no action on, calling such a requirement an “unnecessary and burdensome requirement on volunteers.”
• Ruling on Redacted Emails: In the rehearing decision, the ALJ concluded that because the email string was not an official record, the statute did not require the Respondent to provide it at all. Therefore, the Respondent was not obligated to provide an un-redacted version. The judge also noted the reason for the redaction “does not appear unreasonable.”
• Final Order: Both petitions were denied and dismissed.
Study Guide: Wiercinski v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Petitioner Patricia Wiercinski and Respondent Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. It includes a quiz with an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms, all based on the provided Administrative Law Judge Decisions.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their roles?
2. What specific event on June 19, 2017, initiated the conflict that led to this case?
3. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner in her original petition filed on October 18, 2018?
4. Why did the Respondent’s Board President, Mike Olson, state that the names in the email string were redacted?
5. In the initial hearing, what did the Petitioner argue the Board was required to do after discussing the incident, even if it chose not to act?
6. What was the legal conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge following the first hearing on January 10, 2019?
7. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing of the case?
8. How did the Petitioner’s primary legal argument change between the first hearing and the rehearing?
9. According to the testimony of community manager Kathy Andrews, what types of documents are considered official records of the Association?
10. What was the final determination regarding the status of the email string and the Respondent’s obligation to produce an un-redacted version?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Patricia Wiercinski (“Petitioner”) and the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The Petitioner is a homeowner and member of the Respondent association who filed a complaint alleging the association violated state law. The Respondent is the homeowners’ association defending against the petition.
2. The initiating event was an incident where the Petitioner’s husband, Wayne Coates, allegedly acted belligerent, cursed at, and was verbally abusive to a potential buyer, their family, and their architect who were viewing a property for sale across the street from the Petitioner’s home. The potential buyers were so disturbed by the encounter that they decided to remove the lot from their list of considerations.
3. The Petitioner’s core allegation was that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce official documents related to the Board’s deliberations, decisions, and actions concerning the June 19, 2017 incident involving her husband.
4. Mike Olson testified that the names of the potential purchasers and their real estate agent were redacted from the email string because Mr. Coates has a documented history of bullying, intimidating, and threatening people. The redaction was done to protect these individuals from potential harassment.
5. In the initial hearing, the Petitioner argued that if the Board decided not to take action against her husband over the incident, it was required to make a formal motion and arrive at a formal, written decision to that effect. She claimed she never received such a document or evidence that the Board addressed it in an official meeting.
6. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be denied. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that any official documents regarding the incident existed that the Respondent had failed to produce, as the email discussions were informal and did not constitute official Board business.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing by alleging misconduct on the part of the Administrative Law Judge. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the request, though the decision noted the Commissioner did not specify what the misconduct was or how it should have changed the outcome.
8. In the rehearing, the Petitioner changed her argument from claiming the Board failed to produce a formal decision to arguing that the email string itself constituted an official record of the Association’s business. Consequently, she contended that A.R.S. § 33-1805 required the Respondent to produce a fully un-redacted copy of it.
9. Kathy Andrews testified that official records include matters of record regarding the Association’s business, such as governing documents, architectural guidelines, Board and general meeting minutes, and anything submitted to the Board for action. Because the Board took no action on the June 19, 2017 incident, the email was not included in the Association’s archived records.
10. The final determination was that the email string was not an official record of the association but rather an informal communication. Therefore, A.R.S. § 33-1805 did not require the Respondent to provide an un-redacted version, and the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay-format response for each.
1. Analyze the legal distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between informal discussions among board members and official association business. How was A.R.S. § 33-1805 applied in this context, and what precedent might this set for volunteer HOA board members?
2. Discuss the evolution of Patricia Wiercinski’s legal argument from the initial hearing to the rehearing. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each argument and explain why the second argument was also ultimately unsuccessful.
3. Examine the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner was required to prove and detail the specific evidence (or lack thereof) that led the judge to conclude she had not met this burden in either hearing.
4. The Respondent voluntarily provided the redacted email string after the petition was filed. Discuss the strategic implications of this action and how it influenced the proceedings. Furthermore, analyze the justification provided for the redactions and the judge’s assessment of its reasonableness.
5. Based on the testimony from individuals like Mike Olson, Gregg Arthur, and Kathy Andrews, construct a comprehensive narrative of the events and communications following the June 19, 2017 incident from the perspective of the HOA Board. How did their collective testimony undermine the Petitioner’s claim that official records were being withheld or that the emails constituted official business?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding judge, Diane Mihalsky, from the Office of Administrative Hearings who heard the evidence and issued the legal decisions.
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
The Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner, which stipulates that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member.
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
An Arizona Revised Statute stating that a quorum of a board of directors meeting informally to discuss association business must comply with open meeting and notice provisions, regardless of whether a vote is taken.
Department, The
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and adjudicate petitions from and about homeowners’ associations.
Hoamco
The property management company employed by the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association. Kathy Andrews is an employee of this company.
June 19, 2017 Incident
An altercation where Wayne Coates allegedly engaged in belligerent, cursing, and verbally abusive behavior towards potential property buyers, causing them to lose interest in the property.
Long Meadow Ranch East POA
The Respondent in the case; the homeowners’ association for the Long Meadow Ranch East development in Prescott, Arizona.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
Patricia Wiercinski, a homeowner in Long Meadow Ranch East and a member of the Respondent association who filed the legal petition.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard the Petitioner was required to meet. It is defined as proof that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, meaning the contention is more probably true than not.
Respondent
The Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc., which was the defendant in the petition filed by Patricia Wiercinski.
Wayne Coates
The husband of the Petitioner, Patricia Wiercinski. His alleged actions during the June 19, 2017 incident are the central subject of the dispute.
An acronym for the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office, mentioned in an email as a potential agency to file charges for disorderly conduct/harassment.
4 Shocking Lessons from One Homeowner’s Lawsuit Against Her HOA
Introduction: The Perils of Neighbor Disputes
Most people who live in a planned community harbor a quiet fear of two things: a “neighbor from hell” and a legal dispute with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA). For one Arizona homeowner, those fears collided in a dramatic fashion. When her husband was involved in an incident with prospective buyers of a neighboring lot, she took her HOA to court to demand records of the board’s discussions. The resulting public legal documents provide a masterclass in community association law, revealing several shocking and counter-intuitive lessons for anyone living under an HOA.
——————————————————————————–
1. Takeaway 1: A “Neighbor from Hell” Can Literally Destroy a Real Estate Deal
The case began with a single incident on June 19, 2017. According to court filings, the homeowner’s husband, Wayne Coates, first confronted the wife and son of a builder viewing a vacant lot across the street. The prospective buyers described Mr. Coates’ behavior as “belligerent and cursing,” telling them that “nothing was for sale around here and they shouldn’t be snooping around.” The wife and son then drove up to inform the builder and architect of the hostile encounter.
The confrontation was so severe that it directly caused the potential buyers to walk away from the deal. They documented their experience in an email that eventually became part of the court record.
In closing when we returned one thing that stands out is would we want to live next to this type of behavior of [a] neighbor? The answer is no, this lot was one that we had in our top 2 Lots as a consideration for purchase but due to the volatile potential of this man, we have decided at this point to remove it from our list.
This case is a rare and powerful illustration of tortious interference with a business relationship in a community association context, providing unambiguous, written proof—from the aggrieved party themselves—that a single resident’s conduct directly caused a quantifiable financial loss to a neighbor.
2. Takeaway 2: Your HOA Board’s Private Emails Aren’t Always “Official Records”
The homeowner, Patricia Wiercinski, filed the lawsuit because she believed an email discussion about the incident among a quorum of the HOA board members constituted official business. Therefore, she argued, those emails were “official records” of the association that she had a legal right to inspect.
In a surprising decision, the court disagreed. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that just because board members informally discuss a topic via email does not automatically make it official HOA business or create an official record. This is especially true if the board never takes any formal action on the matter.
The judge’s reasoning was grounded in the practical realities of volunteer-run corporations. To treat every informal chat as official, recordable business would impose “an unnecessary and burdensome requirement on volunteers who are not compensated for their time who are may be neighbors and who may also be friends, in addition to being Board members.” This ruling reinforces a crucial legal boundary between governance and informal communication. It protects a board’s ability to “think out loud” and explore issues before committing to a formal course of action, an essential function for effective volunteer leadership.
3. Takeaway 3: An HOA’s Power Isn’t Unlimited
After learning that Mr. Coates’ actions had killed a property sale, some board members were immediately and deeply alarmed. They recognized the potential damage to property values for everyone in the community. Board member Gregg Arthur expressed this urgency in an email to his colleagues:
Wayne thru his actions appears to have interfered with and destroyed a property sale. We need to meet and take action on this matter as it will have a broad and chilling effect amongst the realtor community… action needs to be taken and quickly to prevent this from happening again.
Despite this initial alarm, the board ultimately took no formal action against Mr. Coates. Why? Because after reviewing the situation, they determined that the incident was a personal dispute between neighbors. Critically, his conduct did not violate any specific provision of the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), bylaws, or other governing documents.
This decision underscores a vital legal principle: an HOA’s authority is fundamentally contractual, derived solely from the powers granted to it in its governing documents. It is not a governmental body with general police powers. Its authority is strictly limited to enforcing the community’s written rules, not policing all neighborhood conduct.
4. Takeaway 4: A Lawsuit Can Create a Devastating—and Public—Record
The petitioner’s goal was straightforward: to force the HOA to produce an un-redacted copy of the board’s private email chain. The result of her legal action, however, was a textbook example of the “Streisand Effect,” where an attempt to suppress information leads to it being publicized far more widely. In her attempt to access a private record, she created a permanent, public legal record that contained far more damaging information about her husband than the emails she sought.
Because of the lawsuit, the following details about Mr. Coates are now cemented in publicly accessible court documents:
• The full, detailed account from the potential buyers describing his “verbally abusive and extremely confrontational” behavior.
• A statement from a board member, Joe Zielinski, referencing Mr. Coates’ “arrest record and prison term and criminal history.”
• Sworn testimony from the HOA President, Mike Olson, explaining that names were redacted from the original email because Mr. Coates has a “history of bullying and intimidating people.”
The irony is devastating. In her quest to unmask the identities of her husband’s accusers in a private email, the petitioner inadvertently created a permanent, public, and deeply unflattering legal record that now constitutes a matter adjudicated by a court.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The High Cost of Conflict
This single, unfortunate neighborhood dispute offers powerful lessons for anyone living in a planned community. It clarifies the real-world impact of resident behavior on property rights, sets a clear boundary on what constitutes an “official” HOA record, demonstrates the legal limits of an HOA’s power, and serves as a sobering warning about the unforeseen consequences of litigation. It leaves us with a final, critical question to ponder: When conflict arises in a community, what is the true cost of escalating it, and is the official record you might create worth the price?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Patricia Wiercinski (petitioner)
- Wayne Coates (petitioner's husband)
Involved in the June 19, 2017 incident
Respondent Side
- Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group - Michael Olson (board member)
President of Respondent's board; testified as witness - Gregg Arthur (board member)
Director on Respondent's board; testified as witness - Kathy Andrews (property manager)
HOAMCO
Community Manager; testified as witness - Jim Robertson (board member)
Director on Respondent's board - Joe Zielinski (board member)
Director on Respondent's board - Boris Biloskirka (board member)
Director on Respondent's board (identified as former in one source) - Tom Reid (board member)
Director on Respondent's board
Neutral Parties
- Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
- Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
ADRE - Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
Decision transmittal clerk
Other Participants
- John Allen (HOA member)
Property owner attempting to sell lot (also spelled Allan) - [Redacted Name] (potential purchaser/witness)
Includes potential buyers, builder, builder's wife, son, and architect involved in the incident - [Redacted Name] (real estate agent/witness)
Real estate agent(s) associated with John Allen's property
