**Case Summary: John B. Clark Jr. v. Foothills Community Association**
**Case No. 20F-H2019007-REL**
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Decision:** February 4, 2020

**Case Overview and Key Facts**
The Petitioner, John B. Clark Jr., is a homeowner who served on the Respondent's Design Review Committee (DRC) from 2011 to 2019. The Respondent is the Foothills Community Association in Phoenix, Arizona. On July 10, 2019, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that the Board of Directors had selected a new member for the DRC to ensure the committee could meet quorum on a monthly basis.

The Petitioner is an airline pilot and Air Force Reservist, commitments which the Board acknowledged necessitated his frequent absence. Evidence presented established that since April 2015, the Petitioner had attended only 19 of 54 DRC meetings, and only 4 of the last 18 meetings prior to his removal.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging that his removal was "political," pretextual, and done in bad faith. He argued the removal violated several of the Respondent's Articles of Incorporation (Articles 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 15) and Bylaws (Article II, Section 2.3; Article III, Section 3.5; and Article IV, Section 4.8(c)). Additionally, the Petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3830.

The Respondent countered that the removal was not political but was a necessary administrative decision to ensure the DRC could conduct business efficiently, as the Petitioner's absences made it difficult to reach a quorum.

**Hearing Proceedings and Legal Findings**
An evidentiary hearing was held on January 15, 2020, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson.

1. **Jurisdiction:** While the Department of Real Estate has jurisdiction over homeowner petitions regarding violations of Title 33, Chapter 16, the ALJ determined she did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 10-3830.
2. **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner bore the burden to prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. **Findings on Removal:** The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that his removal was pretextual. The judge found that the evidence supported the Respondent's claim that the Petitioner was replaced solely due to the Board's desire to meet quorum requirements.
4. **Findings on Governing Documents:** The ALJ ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove the Respondent violated any of the cited Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws.
5. **Attorney’s Fees:** The Respondent's request for attorney's fees was denied. The ALJ noted that under American jurisprudence, fees cannot be awarded without specific statutory authority, which does not exist for this type of administrative proceeding.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ ordered that the petition be **dismissed**. The Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent violated any statute or Bylaw charged in the petition.