Case Summary
| Case ID | 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2021-04-27 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Adam D. Stone |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Charles P Mandela | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association | Counsel | Nicholas Nogami, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline
Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
- A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
- CC&R Article X
- CC&R Section 10.3
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
- A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
Decision Documents
20F-H2020042-REL Decision – 850032.pdf
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Charles P Mandela (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet
Respondent Side
- Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
- Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Issued the decision for the original hearing and the rehearing - Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Issued an Order Granting Rehearing
