**Case Summary: Carnahan v. White Mountain Lake Vistas**
**Case No:** 20F-H2019021-REL
**Date of Decision:** January 13, 2020
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona Department of Real Estate

**Overview**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioner Olga Carnahan and Respondent White Mountain Lake Vistas (a Homeowners Association). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by purchasing two lots without obtaining a majority vote from the homeowners.

**Key Facts**
* The Petitioner, a lot owner since 2017, filed a petition claiming the HOA Board improperly purchased lots #54 and #65 without holding a membership vote.
* The Respondent purchased these lots to address drainage issues.
* While the purchase was discussed at a September 2019 meeting where members expressed general agreement, the Board did not conduct a formal membership vote, asserting it was not required.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** The Petitioner argued that Article 12.3 of the CC&Rs required a two-thirds (2/3) membership vote for such actions. She further contended that the purchase resulted in an immediate financial loss for the Association because no HOA fees would be collected on the vacant lots.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Respondent argued that Article 12.3 specifically governs amendments to the CC&Rs and the Plat, not the purchase of real property. Testimony established that while Article 12.3 requires a 2/3 vote to *amend* the Declaration, it contains no provision requiring a vote to *purchase* property.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera presided over the hearing and issued the following findings:

1. **Interpretation of Governing Documents:** The Judge examined Article 12.3, noting it explicitly addresses "Amendments." Article 12.3.1 requires a 2/3 vote to amend the Declaration, and Article 12.3.2 allows the Board to amend the Plat in specific regulatory scenarios without owner consent.
2. **Scope of Authority:** The Judge determined that Article 12.3 does not require a membership vote for the purchase of property. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to establish that the CC&Rs mandated a vote for the acquisition of lots #54 and #65.
3. **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence but failed to do so.
4. **Ripeness:** The Judge ruled that arguments regarding future financial adversity were not ripe and did not constitute an immediate violation.

**Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be **dismissed**. The Respondent was found to have acted within its authority, as the CC&Rs did not require a membership vote for the purchase of the lots in question.