Case Summary
| Case ID | 21F-H2120001-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2021-03-17 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Tammy L. Eigenheer |
| Outcome | partial |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Debra K. Morin | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc. | Counsel | Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Outcome Summary
Petitioner's petition was affirmed in part and denied in part. Petitioner prevailed on Complaint #1 (improper use of email/unanimous written consent for non-privileged business), but lost on Complaint #2 (alleged improper emergency executive session). Respondent was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 and reimburse the $500 filing fee.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation related to the emergency executive session (Complaint #2).
Key Issues & Findings
Non-privileged Association Business Conducted in Closed Session (Complaint #1)
The HOA used unanimous written consents obtained via individual emails from board members to approve association business (such as approving repairs, replacement of equipment, and pruning) outside of open meetings, violating the requirement that all meetings of the board of directors must be open to members.
Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward. No civil penalty assessed due to the COVID-19 pandemic circumstances.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1804
- A.R.S. § 10-3821
Association Business Conducted in an Emergency Executive Session (Complaint #2)
Petitioner alleged misuse of emergency executive sessions. Respondent represented that the sessions only addressed issues under statutory exceptions. Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this violation occurred.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1804
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 33-1804
- A.R.S. § 10-3821
- A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120001-REL-RHG Decision – 864802.pdf
21F-H2120001-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120001-REL/838004.pdf
Administrative Hearing Brief: Morin vs. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative case (No. 21F-H2120001-REL) involving homeowner Debra K. Morin (Petitioner) and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core issue revolved around the association’s adherence to Arizona’s open meeting laws for planned communities, as stipulated in A.R.S. § 33-1804.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the Solera Chandler HOA violated this statute by conducting non-privileged association business without an open meeting. The Board of Directors made numerous decisions between March and July 2020—including approving contracts for repairs, appointing committee members, and changing design guidelines—through a process of “unanimous written consent” executed via individual emails. This method circumvented statutory requirements for 48-hour notice to members, published agendas, and the opportunity for homeowners to speak before a vote.
The HOA defended its actions by citing the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and a separate statute, A.R.S. § 10-3821, which permits non-profit corporations to act without a meeting. However, the Judge ruled that the specific requirements of the HOA open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) take precedence, emphasizing the state’s explicit policy in favor of transparency and open meetings for homeowners’ associations.
While the petitioner’s primary complaint was affirmed, a second allegation regarding the misuse of emergency executive sessions was denied due to insufficient evidence. The final order directed the HOA to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 in the future and to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. No civil penalty was assessed, with the judge acknowledging the “unprecedented global pandemic” as a mitigating circumstance.
Case Overview
Case Number
21F-H2120001-REL
Petitioner
Debra K. Morin
Respondent
Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Jurisdiction
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Timeline of Adjudication
• July 10, 2020: Debra Morin files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• October 29, 2020: The initial administrative hearing is held.
• November 18, 2020: The first Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.
• February 25, 2021: A rehearing is held at the Respondent’s request to clarify a finding of fact.
• March 17, 2021: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, affirming the original conclusion with a factual correction.
Petitioner’s Allegations
The petitioner, Debra K. Morin, focused her case on two specific complaints alleging violations of Arizona’s open meeting law for HOAs (A.R.S. § 33-1804).
Complaint #1: Improper Use of Closed Sessions and Unanimous Written Consent
The petitioner alleged that the Solera HOA Board of Directors conducted non-privileged association business in closed sessions without proper procedure. Specifically, the Board was accused of:
• Failing to provide members with 48-hour notice of meetings.
• Failing to provide agendas for the business being conducted.
• Denying members the opportunity to speak prior to the Board taking action on key issues.
• Using “unanimous written consent” to bypass open meeting requirements.
Complaint #2: Misuse of “Emergency Executive Sessions”
The petitioner further alleged that the Board conducted privileged association business under the guise of “emergency executive sessions” improperly by:
• Failing to identify the specific statutory exception to the open meeting law that permitted the closed session.
• Failing to provide an agenda and 48-hour notice where possible.
• Failing to produce minutes stating the reason for the emergency and submitting them at the next board meeting.
Respondent’s Actions and Defense
The Solera Chandler HOA acknowledged using unanimous written consents but argued its actions were a necessary response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented in-person meetings. The Board asserted its actions were legally authorized under A.R.S. § 10-3821, a statute governing non-profit corporations.
Use of Unanimous Written Consent
Evidence presented at the rehearing established the Board’s procedure. For each action, an individual from the community management company would email each Board member individually to solicit a “yes” or “no” vote. If all members voted “yes,” the action was considered passed by unanimous consent, and the Board President would sign the formal consent document. The HOA stated it had not used this method before the pandemic and did not intend to continue its use.
The following actions were taken by the Board using this method and were later ratified at the August 5, 2020, open Board meeting:
Action Taken via Unanimous Written Consent
March 30, 2020
Approve repair and replacement of sidewalk and community center entrance.
March 30, 2020
Approve repair and replacement of cool decking around both pools.
April 30, 2020
Approve Kirk Sandquist as a member of the Architectural Review Committee.
April 30, 2020
Approve Tom Dusbabek as a member of the Architectural Review Committee.
May 5, 2020
Approve Gilbert Road retention basin project, related irrigation replacement, and addition of 420 tons of granite.
May 8, 2020
Approve replacement of a Carrier 6-ton heat pump.
May 8, 2020
Approve replacement of two Carrier 5-ton heat pumps.
May 27, 2020
Approve hiring Ken Eller to draft architectural drawings.
June 4, 2020
Approve a change to the Design Guidelines at the request of the Architectural Review Committee.
July 1, 2020
Approve the 2020 summer hardwood pruning and removal of trees.
Chronology of Executive Sessions
In addition to the actions taken by written consent, the Board held numerous executive (closed) sessions between March and August 2020, citing specific exceptions in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A). Minutes for these meetings were approved at the August 5, 2020 executive session but were redacted to conceal the substance of the discussions.
Date of Session
Cited Statutory Exceptions for Closed Session (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A))
March 13, 2020
(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation, (4) Employee matters
March 16, 2020
(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation
March 19, 2020
(1) Legal advice
March 24, 2020
(4) Employee matters
April 6, 2020
(4) Employee matters
April 10, 2020
(4) Employee matters
May 4, 2020
(4) Employee matters
May 12, 2020*
(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation, (4) Employee matters
May 15, 2020
(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation
May 27, 2020
(2) Pending litigation, (4) Employee matters
June 24, 2020
(2) Pending litigation, (3) Personal/health/financial information
August 5, 2020
(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation, (3) Personal/health/financial information
*Designated an “emergency executive session.”
Adjudication and Legal Rulings
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision rested on the interpretation and primacy of Arizona’s statutes governing homeowners’ associations.
Statutory Conflict and Interpretation
The central legal question was the conflict between two state laws:
• A.R.S. § 33-1804: Specifically requires all HOA Board meetings to be open to all members, with limited exceptions for closed executive sessions. It explicitly states a policy that statutes should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”
• A.R.S. § 10-3821: A general corporate law that allows boards of non-profit corporations to take action “without a meeting” if there is unanimous written consent from all directors.
The Judge concluded that while A.R.S. § 10-3821 may apply to non-profits generally, the more specific statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, governs the conduct of HOA boards. The requirement for open meetings in the HOA statute overrides the provision allowing for action without a meeting in the general non-profit statute.
Ruling on Complaint #1 (Improper Closed Business)
Finding: In favor of the Petitioner.
• The Judge ruled that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent committed the violation.
• The decision states, “Respondent improperly conducted association business in closed sessions via email rather than in meetings open to the members.”
• An initial finding that the business was conducted via “conference calls” was corrected after the rehearing to specify the method was individual emails, but this did not change the outcome.
• The Judge gave “consideration to the fact that Respondent was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic” and found that no civil penalty was appropriate under the circumstances.
Ruling on Complaint #2 (Misuse of Executive Sessions)
Finding: In favor of the Respondent.
• The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for this allegation.
• The decision notes, “Nothing in the record suggested the Board discussed other issues that did not fall under the exceptions listed and/or that the May 12, 2020 executive session was not an emergency.”
Final Order and Directives
The Administrative Law Judge’s final, binding order issued on March 17, 2021, included the following directives:
1. Petition Affirmed in Part: The petitioner’s petition was affirmed on the issue of Complaint #1 and denied on the issue of Complaint #2.
2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Respondent (Solera Chandler HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner (Debra Morin) her $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which she prevailed.
3. Compliance Mandate: Respondent was directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.
Study Guide: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case involving Debra K. Morin and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. It includes short-answer questions with an answer key, essay questions for further analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms based on the provided legal decisions.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, using only information from the source documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What were the two main complaints filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent’s Board of Directors?
3. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) did the Petitioner allege the Respondent violated, and what is the general policy purpose of this statute?
4. How did the Respondent justify its use of unanimous written consents and its decision to forgo open meetings from March to July 2020?
5. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final ruling on Complaint #1, which concerned conducting non-privileged association business?
6. What was the ruling on Complaint #2, which concerned the use of emergency executive sessions, and what was the reason for this outcome?
7. A rehearing was granted after the initial decision. What specific factual conclusion from the first decision was the focus of this rehearing?
8. How did the evidence presented at the rehearing clarify the method used by the Board of Directors to pass unanimous written consents?
9. Despite finding the Respondent in violation of state law, why did the Administrative Law Judge decide not to impose a civil penalty?
10. What two actions was the Respondent ordered to take as a result of the final ruling?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Debra K. Morin, the Petitioner, and Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging statutory violations by the Respondent homeowners’ association.
2. The Petitioner’s first complaint alleged that the Respondent conducted non-privileged business in closed sessions using unanimous written consent, without providing proper notice, agendas, or an opportunity for members to speak. The second complaint alleged the Respondent conducted privileged business under the guise of “emergency executive sessions” without proper justification or documentation.
3. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804. The stated policy of this statute is that all meetings of a planned community should be conducted openly, with notices and agendas provided to reasonably inform members and ensure they have the ability to speak before a vote is taken.
4. The Respondent argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, its Board of Directors was unable to meet in person to protect the health of its members and directors. The Respondent asserted that taking action via unanimous written consents was authorized under a different statute, A.R.S. § 10-3821, which applies to non-profit corporations.
5. The Judge affirmed the Petitioner’s first complaint, finding that she had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent improperly conducted association business. The Judge ruled that while A.R.S. § 10-3821 allows for action without a meeting, A.R.S. § 33-1804 specifically requires that HOA board meetings be open to members.
6. The Judge denied the Petitioner’s second complaint. The ruling stated that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the executive sessions were improper, as nothing in the record suggested the Board discussed issues outside of the legally permitted exceptions or that the May 12, 2020 session was not a true emergency.
7. The rehearing focused on Conclusion of Law 8 from the initial decision, which stated that the “Respondent improperly conducted association business in closed sessions via conference calls.” The Respondent disputed that the business related to the unanimous written consents was conducted via conference call.
8. Evidence at the rehearing established that an individual from the community management company would email each Board member individually to request a “yes” or “no” vote on a proposal. If all members voted “yes,” the action was considered passed by unanimous consent, which the Judge still found to be a violation of the open meeting law.
9. The Judge gave consideration to the fact that the Respondent was “faced with an unprecedented global pandemic while balancing the need to comply with the applicable statutes.” Because of these unique circumstances, the Judge found that no civil penalty was appropriate.
10. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee for the complaint on which she prevailed. The Respondent was also directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for deeper analysis and discussion. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the statutory conflict between A.R.S. § 33-1804 (HOA open meetings) and A.R.S. § 10-3821 (non-profit action without a meeting) as presented in this case. Explain the legal reasoning the Administrative Law Judge used to determine that the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 took precedence for a homeowners’ association.
2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” How did the Petitioner successfully meet this evidentiary burden for Complaint #1 but fail to meet it for Complaint #2?
3. Evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the actions of the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association and the final judgment of the Administrative Law Judge. How did this external event influence both the violation itself and the penalty phase of the ruling?
4. According to A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), what is the stated public policy of Arizona regarding meetings of planned communities? How did this explicit policy statement likely influence the judge’s interpretation of the law and the final decision regarding Complaint #1?
5. Describe the full procedural history of this case, from the initial petition through the rehearing and final order. What does the granting of a rehearing to correct a factual finding demonstrate about the legal process and the importance of accuracy in judicial decisions?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A judge who presides over administrative hearings, in this case within the Office of Administrative Hearings. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on the applicable laws and facts.
A.R.S. § 10-3821
An Arizona Revised Statute pertaining to non-profit corporations. It allows a corporation’s board of directors to take action without a meeting if the action is approved by a unanimous written consent signed by every director.
A.R.S. § 33-1804
An Arizona Revised Statute specifically governing planned communities (homeowners’ associations). It mandates that all board of directors meetings be open to association members, requires 48-hour notice and an agenda, and allows members to speak.
Executive Session
A portion of a board meeting that is closed to association members. A.R.S. § 33-1804 strictly limits these sessions to specific topics, such as receiving legal advice, discussing pending litigation, or reviewing confidential personal, health, or financial information of an individual.
Hearing
A formal proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge where parties present evidence and arguments related to a legal dispute. In this case, hearings were held on October 29, 2020, and February 25, 2021.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. In this matter, the Arizona Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction to hear disputes between a property owner and a homeowners’ association.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Debra K. Morin was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative case. It means the evidence presented must be more convincing and probable than the evidence offered in opposition, showing the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”
Rehearing
A second hearing granted to re-examine an issue from an initial hearing. In this case, a rehearing was granted at the Respondent’s request to address the factual finding of how it conducted business (conference calls vs. email).
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., was the Respondent.
Statutory Construction
The process of interpreting and applying legislation. The primary goal is to ascertain the legislature’s intent, beginning with the plain text of the statute.
Unanimous Written Consent
A procedure, authorized by A.R.S. § 10-3821, where an action is approved in writing by all members of a board of directors without a formal meeting. The Respondent used this method for actions such as approving repairs, appointing committee members, and changing design guidelines.
4 Surprising Lessons from One Homeowner’s Legal Battle with Her HOA
Introduction: When Your HOA Goes Dark
In the chaos of early 2020, as the world shut down, many Homeowners’ Association boards faced a critical challenge: how to govern when gathering in person was impossible? For residents of the Solera Chandler community, the answer was alarming—their board went dark. Citing the global crisis, the board began making major community decisions in secret, bypassing open meetings entirely. This raised a crucial legal question for every homeowner in the state: can an HOA board use a pandemic as justification to govern by private email? The legal battle launched by one determined resident, Debra K. Morin, provides a fascinating and unexpected answer.
1. Your HOA Board Can’t Govern by Email—Even in a Pandemic
At first glance, the Solera Chandler HOA board’s actions seemed like a practical response to an unprecedented crisis. To keep community business moving, the board began approving actions through a series of votes conducted via email. Using this process, the board made several significant decisions, including:
• Approving repairs for sidewalks and the community center entrance.
• Approving the replacement of cool decking around both pools.
• Appointing two new members to the Architectural Review Committee.
• Approving a major retention basin project, including irrigation replacement and the addition of 420 tons of granite.
• Hiring an architect to draft drawings.
The board’s defense rested on a clever, but ultimately flawed, legal argument. They cited Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3821, which allows general non-profit corporations to take action via “unanimous written consent” without a formal meeting. It was a reasonable assumption. However, an Administrative Law Judge ruled their actions were a clear violation of state law.
The legal reasoning is a vital lesson in statutory interpretation. The judge affirmed that when two laws conflict, the more specific statute prevails. In this case, the highly specific HOA Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804), which explicitly requires board meetings to be open to all members, overrides the more general rule for non-profits. The ruling provided a clear interpretation of the law: even a global pandemic does not grant an HOA board the power to circumvent its duty of transparency. In fact, a rehearing in the case clarified the board was making decisions through a series of individual emails—a method that completely prevented any form of an open meeting.
2. The Law Prioritizes Transparency Above All Else
The judge’s decision was not a mere technicality. It was a firm defense of the core policy undergirding Arizona’s HOA laws. The statute itself contains a powerful mission statement that leaves no room for ambiguity. A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) declares:
It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community, whether meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for those meetings that contain the information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters to be discussed or decided and to ensure that members have the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items, but before a vote of the board of directors or members is taken.
This principle is the bedrock of community governance. It ensures that homeowners can observe deliberations and have their say before a final decision is made. This right to be heard is lost when a board approves a costly pool deck repair or appoints a new committee member through a series of private emails, with homeowners only finding out after the fact. The court affirmed that this right is not a suggestion; it is a non-negotiable legal requirement.
3. A Legal “Win” Doesn’t Always Mean Punishment
After proving a clear violation of state law, the homeowner won… but the HOA received no punishment. Here’s why that isn’t a contradiction. Although Debra K. Morin successfully demonstrated that the board had broken the law, the Administrative Law Judge decided against imposing any civil penalty.
The judge’s reasoning highlights the law’s capacity for context. “Consideration is given to the fact that Respondent was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic while balancing the need to comply with the applicable statutes and conduct association business,” the decision stated.
Instead of a punitive fine, the consequences were corrective. The board was formally ordered to comply with the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) going forward, and the association was required to reimburse Ms. Morin for her $500 filing fee. This outcome reveals a surprising nuance in administrative law: a judgment can simultaneously vindicate a petitioner and uphold the law while acknowledging mitigating circumstances, focusing on future compliance rather than past punishment.
4. One Determined Homeowner Can Make a Difference
This entire legal challenge was initiated by a single resident: Debra K. Morin. Her story, however, is a realistic and therefore more empowering example of homeowner advocacy. Ms. Morin actually filed two separate complaints. While she won her landmark case regarding secret email voting, she did not prevail on a second, unrelated claim concerning the board’s use of “emergency executive sessions.”
This partial victory makes her success on the transparency issue even more significant. It shows that the legal system carefully parsed her arguments, affirming the one with the broadest implications for community governance. By filing her petition, she secured a formal order compelling her HOA to follow the law and was refunded the costs she incurred.
Morin’s petition demonstrates that community governance is not a spectator sport. It proves that one homeowner with a grasp of the rules and the determination to see them enforced can successfully realign a board with its fundamental duty of transparency.
Conclusion: Is Your HOA Playing by the Rules?
The case of Morin vs. Solera Chandler HOA delivers a sharp, unambiguous message: the legal requirement for transparency is absolute, even in the face of extraordinary circumstances. While the board’s pandemic-related pressures earned it leniency from fines, the foundational principle of open governance was decisively upheld. This case serves as a powerful reminder of the rights of homeowners and the duties of their elected boards. It sets a clear standard for openness—does your own HOA’s process for making decisions live up to it?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Debra K. Morin (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf,
Respondent Side
- Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Also cited as Lydia Linsmeier,,, - Joshua M. Bolen (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP - Gail Ryan (board member (President))
Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc.
Resigned August 5, 2020
Neutral Parties
- Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
OAH - Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - f. del sol (clerk/staff)
Signed transmission notice, - LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient - AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient - djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient - DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient - ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient
Other Participants
- Kirk Sandquist (committee member (ARC))
Approved to Architectural Review Committee - Tom Dusbabek (committee member (ARC))
Approved to Architectural Review Committee - Ken Eller (consultant)
Approved to draft architectural drawings
