Case Summary
| Case ID | 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2022-02-02 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Jenna Clark |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes | Counsel | Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association | Counsel | Samantha Cote, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 regarding the availability of voting records.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the HOA violated the statute through its NDA request or its method of providing the records (redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes) and failed to prove the records were not made reasonably available within the required statutory time frame.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to comply with voting records request (regarding assessment and cumulative voting records)
Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by requiring an NDA and providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, which prevented Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. Respondent argued it timely provided the totality of the requested information and that the manner of delivery did not violate the statute.
Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 881665.pdf
21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944169.pdf
21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944171.pdf
Administrative Law Judge Decision: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.
The final order, issued on February 2, 2022, denied the petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that a statutory violation occurred. The decision found that the Association’s method of providing the requested documents—redacted ballots in one stack and unredacted envelopes in another—was a “reasonable” approach that balanced the Petitioners’ right to examination with the Association’s duty to protect member privacy. While acknowledging this methodology was “not ideal,” the ALJ determined it made the totality of the requested information “reasonably available” as required by law and was not a violation. The ruling also established that the Association’s initial request for the Petitioners to sign a non-disclosure agreement did not constitute a statutory violation.
Case Overview
Entity
Details
Case Number
21F-H2120020-REL-RHG
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Petitioners
Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes
Respondent
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Central Allegation
Respondent failed to comply with a January 16, 2020, voting records request, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
Final Order Date
February 2, 2022
Outcome
Petition Denied.
Chronology of Key Events
• October 4, 2017: The Association’s Board of Directors adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for votes on special assessments.
• October 28, 2019 (approx.): A vote occurs regarding an increase in association dues.
• December 2019: A vote occurs regarding a proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.
• January 6, 2020: Petitioners submit a written request to view the votes for the cumulative voting amendment.
• January 13, 2020: The Association’s Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots, citing member privacy concerns. Petitioners decline to sign the NDA.
• January 16, 2020: Counsel for Petitioners submits a formal written request for all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase vote and the cumulative voting amendment.
• January 30, 2020: The Association’s counsel responds, stating the Association must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners” and that the records will be made available for inspection.
• February 7, 2020: Petitioners inspect documents at the office of the Association’s counsel. They are provided with two stacks of documents: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. They review the cumulative voting records for approximately 3.5 hours but cannot match specific ballots to specific voter envelopes.
• August 5, 2020: Petitioners issue a new demand for “unredacted ballots” and all related documents. No additional documentation is provided.
• September 22, 2020: Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the formal dispute process.
• May 17, 2021: An initial ALJ Decision is issued.
• June 22, 2021: Petitioners file a request for a rehearing on the grounds that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
• July 15, 2021: The rehearing request is granted.
• January 13, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is held before the OAH.
• February 2, 2022: The final ALJ Decision is issued, again denying the Petitioners’ petition.
Central Legal Arguments
The rehearing focused on oral arguments from both parties regarding the interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made “reasonably available” for member examination.
Petitioners’ Position
• Unredacted Records Required: The statute requires the production of unredacted copies of requested documents, and the Association’s failure to provide original, unaltered documents was a violation.
• Methodology Impeded Access: By providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, the Respondent prevented the Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. This action meant the documents were not made “reasonably available.”
• NDA Was an Unlawful Barrier: The Association’s demand for an NDA was not supported by any enumerated exception in the statute and constituted an unlawful barrier to accessing records.
• No Expectation of Privacy: Petitioners argued that the ballots were not truly “secret ballots” because some had names or signatures on them, meaning voters “could not have reasonably held an expectation of privacy.”
Respondent’s Position
• Statute is Silent on Method: The statute does not specify how records must be made available, only that they must be. Respondent argued it had complied by providing the “totality of records” requested in a timely fashion.
• Balancing of Duties: The Association devised a method to satisfy its dual obligations: complying with the records request and protecting its members’ privacy and safety. This concern was heightened by complaints from other homeowners about “harassing” behaviors by the Petitioners.
• Information Was Provided: The two sets of documents (redacted ballots, unredacted envelopes) amounted to one complete set of unredacted records, allowing Petitioners to “cross reference and discern the information they sought.”
• NDA Was Reasonable: The NDA was proposed to protect member privacy regarding their secret ballot votes. Respondent argued it was ultimately irrelevant to the case, as the records were provided even after Petitioners declined to sign it.
Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Final Order
The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 and a finding that the Petitioners did not meet their evidentiary burden.
Key Rulings and Conclusions of Law
1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the statute. The ALJ concluded they failed to do so.
2. On the NDA: The Judge explicitly held that “Respondent’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA does not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
3. On Timeliness: The Association’s response on January 30, 2020, to the January 16, 2020, request was within the 10-business-day statutory deadline (which ended January 31, 2020). The Petitioners did not establish that the documents were unavailable for review prior to the February 7 inspection date.
4. On the Method of Disclosure: This was the central finding. The decision states that the manner in which the documents were provided did not violate the statute. The ALJ found that the record reflected that “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” Because there was no evidence that the documents were not made “reasonably available,” a violation could not be concluded.
5. Reasonableness of Association’s Actions: The ALJ offered a final assessment of the Association’s methodology: “While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”
Final Order
Based on the finding that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof, the final order was unambiguous: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”
The order is binding on the parties, who were notified of their right to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the Superior Court within 35 days from the date of service.
Study Guide: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the key parties, events, arguments, and legal principles outlined in the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?
2. What specific statute did the Petitioners allege the Respondent violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?
3. What two specific sets of voting records did the Petitioners request from the Association in their January 16, 2020 letter?
4. What action did the Association’s Board of Directors take on January 13, 2020, in response to the Petitioners’ initial request, and what was their stated reason for doing so?
5. Describe the method the Association used to provide the requested voting records to the Petitioners on February 7, 2020.
6. What was the Petitioners’ main argument for why the Association’s method of providing the documents failed to comply with the law?
7. What was the Association’s primary defense for the way it provided the records and for its overall actions?
8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, and what is the standard required to meet that burden?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Association’s request that the Petitioners sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA)?
10. What was the ultimate outcome of the case as determined by the Administrative Law Judge in the final order issued on February 2, 2022?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes, who are the “Petitioners,” and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, which is the “Respondent.” The Petitioners are property owners and members of the Association who filed a complaint against it. The Association is the governing body for the residential development, managed by Vision Community Management, LLC.
2. The Petitioners alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805. The core requirement of this statute is that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association must be made “reasonably available” for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.
3. The January 16, 2020 letter requested all ballots and related documents from the vote regarding the increase in dues that occurred around October 28, 2019. It also requested all written consent forms and ballots for the Proposed Declaration Amendment regarding cumulative voting, which occurred in December 2019.
4. On January 13, 2020, the Board of Directors voted 8 to 1 to require the Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots. Their stated reason was a concern for members’ expectation of privacy regarding non-public information and a fear that members could be harassed based on their votes.
5. The Association provided the Petitioners with two separate stacks of documents. One stack contained redacted ballots, and the other stack contained unredacted envelopes that the ballots had been mailed in. This method separated the vote from the identity of the voter.
6. The Petitioners argued that by providing redacted copies and separate envelopes, the Respondent had not made the documents “reasonably available” as required by statute. They contended this method created an unlawful barrier because they were unable to cross-reference the ballots with the purported voters to verify the vote.
7. The Association defended its actions by arguing that the statute does not specify the how records should be produced, only that they be made available. It contended that it provided the totality of the information requested in a timely manner while also fulfilling its duty to protect the privacy and safety of its members from potential harassment.
8. The Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent’s request for the Petitioners to sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge also noted the NDA was ultimately irrelevant to the outcome because the Association provided the documents even though the Petitioners declined to sign it.
10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners’ petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof to show that the Association had committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, finding the Association’s actions to be reasonable under the circumstances.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each prompt, citing specific facts and arguments from the case documents.
1. Analyze the central legal conflict over the interpretation of the phrase “reasonably available” in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Contrast the arguments made by the Petitioners and the Respondent, and explain how the Administrative Law Judge ultimately resolved this conflict in the decision.
2. Discuss the competing interests the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association attempted to balance in its response to the records request. Evaluate the measures it took, including the proposed NDA and the method of document delivery, in light of its duties to both the Petitioners and its general membership.
3. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing on September 22, 2020, to the final order on February 2, 2022. What does this timeline reveal about the administrative hearing and appeals process for HOA disputes in Arizona?
4. The Petitioners argued that the ballots in question were not truly “secret ballots” and that voters could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument supporting this position and a counter-argument defending the Association’s stance on member privacy.
5. Examine the legal reasoning employed by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law.” How did principles of statutory construction and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard directly influence the final order denying the Petitioners’ petition?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition in the Context of the Document
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
The specific Arizona statute at the heart of the dispute, which mandates that a homeowners’ association’s records be made “reasonably available” for member examination within ten business days of a request.
Association / Respondent
The Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, the governing body for the residential development and the party against whom the petition was filed.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The group that oversees the Association and is responsible for its governance. The Board voted to require an NDA before releasing voting records.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioners) to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents for the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.
Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)
A legal contract proposed by the Association’s Board that would have required the Petitioners to keep the voting information confidential. The Petitioners declined to sign it.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department refers HOA dispute cases for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
Petitioners
Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, members of the Association who filed the petition alleging a violation of state law by the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioners to win their case. It is defined as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is more probably true than not.
Redacted
Edited to remove or black out confidential or private information. The Association provided redacted ballots to the Petitioners to protect member privacy.
Vision Community Management, LLC (Vision)
The management company hired by and acting on behalf of the Association.
Your HOA Can Legally Keep Secrets From You. Here’s How.
Introduction: The Fight for Transparency
As a homeowner in an association, you assume a right to see the records. Transparency, after all, is the bedrock of accountability. But a recent legal dispute in Arizona offers a masterclass in how the gap between a right to information and the reality of obtaining it can be vast. The case demonstrates how a determined HOA, armed with a nuanced legal strategy and a literal interpretation of the law, can fulfill its obligation to provide records while ensuring they reveal almost nothing. It’s a story of escalation that began not with redacted documents, but with a demand for a nondisclosure agreement, setting the stage for a battle over what it truly means for records to be “available.”
1. The Two-Pile Shuffle: How “Access” Doesn’t Always Mean “Answers”
The conflict began with a standard request from a group of homeowners (the Petitioners) to examine their HOA’s voting records. The Board’s response, however, was anything but standard. Citing privacy concerns, the Board voted 8-to-1 on a crucial first move: it would require the homeowners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before they could view the ballots. The homeowners refused, creating a standoff.
Forced to provide access but unwilling to yield on its privacy stance, the HOA (the Respondent) devised a clever workaround. When the homeowners arrived to inspect the approximately 122 pages of records, they weren’t handed a coherent set of documents. Instead, after spending roughly three and a half hours sifting through the materials, they discovered they had been given two separate stacks: one containing redacted ballots with the votes visible but the names blacked out, and another containing the unredacted envelopes they arrived in.
This “two-pile shuffle” made it impossible to match a ballot to a voter, effectively neutralizing the homeowners’ ability to verify the vote. They argued that this method failed to make the documents “reasonably available” as required by Arizona statute. The HOA’s strategy proved legally astute, leading to a court case that hinged on the very definition of access.
2. The Privacy Shield: A Proactive Defense
The HOA’s justification for its actions was a proactive and layered defense rooted in protecting its members. The Board’s initial demand for an NDA was not a retroactive excuse, but its opening move, signaling a deep-seated concern that releasing the voting information could lead to conflict within the community.
This concern was not merely abstract. Faced with multiple homeowner complaints labeling the Petitioners’ behavior as “harassing,” the Board first attempted to manage the information release by requiring the nondisclosure agreement. When that failed, it developed the two-pile system. The HOA’s legal position was that it had a duty to balance the homeowners’ request against the “privacy and safety of all Owners.” In a letter, the association’s counsel articulated this position clearly:
The Association’s position is that it has to balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners within the Association. The Board is concerned with the personal information contained on the written consent forms or other documents and fears that individual members will be retaliated against or harassed based on a member’s decision to support, or not support, the matters up for a decision.
This defense, framed as a duty to protect the community from internal strife, became the cornerstone of the HOA’s successful legal argument.
3. The “Reasonably Available” Loophole
The entire legal battle was ultimately decided by the interpretation of a single phrase in Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which requires an association to make its records “reasonably available.” The case exposed a critical ambiguity in the law.
• The Homeowners’ View: They argued that “reasonably available” implies usability. To be meaningful, the records had to be provided in a way that allowed them to cross-reference votes with voters. A deliberately disorganized release, they contended, was not reasonable.
• The HOA’s View: The association countered with a brilliant legal distinction: the statute dictates what records must be produced, not how they must be presented. By providing all the components—the ballots and the envelopes—they had fulfilled their duty, even if they were separated.
In a decision that highlights the judiciary’s deference to the literal text of a statute, the Administrative Law Judge sided with the HOA. The judge’s ruling found no violation because, in the end, the homeowners had received everything they asked for. The legal linchpin of the decision was the finding that “the record reflects that Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” This interpretation effectively created a loophole, allowing the HOA to comply with the letter of the law while completely withholding the context the homeowners sought.
Conclusion: When “Legal” Isn’t the Whole Story
This case is a stark reminder that a legally defensible action can still feel like an affront to the spirit of community governance. The HOA’s victory demonstrates that in a dispute over transparency, the side with the more precise reading of the law, rather than the more open approach, may prevail. It reveals the profound tension between a homeowner’s right to know, an association’s duty to protect its members from potential harassment, and the powerful ambiguities hidden in legal statutes. An HOA can, with careful legal maneuvering, use privacy as a shield to deliver information in a way that obscures more than it reveals—and do so without breaking the law.
In a community governed by rules, what’s more important: absolute transparency, or the protection of every member’s privacy?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Sandra Swanson (petitioner)
- Robert Barnes (petitioner)
- Kristin Roebuck Bethell (petitioner attorney)
Horne Siaton, PLLC
Also listed as Kristin Roebuck, Esq.,
Respondent Side
- Jeremy Johnson (respondent attorney)
Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC - Samantha Cote (respondent attorney)
Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
Also listed as Sam Cote, Esq., - Patricia Ahler (witness)
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association - Amanda Stewart (witness)
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association - Jennifer Amundson (witness)
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association - Regis Salazar (witness)
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association - Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
Vision Community Management, LLC
Attorney for Vision, the HOA's property manager,
Neutral Parties
- Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner during initial decision phase - Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner during final/rehearing decision phase, - Dan Gardner (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ADRE contact c/o Commissioner,,
