Case Summary
| Case ID | 22F-H2221013-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2022-03-02 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Tammy L. Eigenheer |
| Outcome | The Administrative Law Judge granted Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA violated its community documents regarding common area maintenance because a bottle tree in the common area caused damage to Petitioner's property. The ALJ ordered the HOA to comply with the relevant community document provisions and refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. The ALJ noted she lacked statutory authority to award the approximately $28,486.00 in monetary damages requested by Petitioner. |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Nancy L Pope | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | La Vida Homeowners Association | Counsel | Erik J. Stone |
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article V Section 1, CC&Rs Article VI Section 1a, and Bylaws Article IV Section 2c
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge granted Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA violated its community documents regarding common area maintenance because a bottle tree in the common area caused damage to Petitioner's property. The ALJ ordered the HOA to comply with the relevant community document provisions and refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. The ALJ noted she lacked statutory authority to award the approximately $28,486.00 in monetary damages requested by Petitioner.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA failure to maintain common area landscaping resulting in root damage to homeowner property.
The Respondent HOA violated its community document obligations for common area maintenance (including landscaping) because a bottle tree located in the common area caused substantial root intrusion damage (lifting and heaving) to the Petitioner's patio and concrete slab.
Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to abide by CC&Rs Article V Section 1, CC&Rs Article VI Section 1a, and Bylaws Article IV Section 2c. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. No civil penalty imposed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
- Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
- Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 932121.pdf
22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 932140.pdf
22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 951381.pdf
22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 954163.pdf
22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 932121.pdf
22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 932140.pdf
22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 951381.pdf
22F-H2221013-REL Decision – 954163.pdf
This summary details the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the case of Nancy L. Pope v. La Vida Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221013-REL).
Key Facts and Issues
Petitioner Nancy L. Pope, a homeowner in the La Vida subdivision, filed a petition against the La Vida Homeowners Association (HOA), alleging violations of the HOA's Bylaws (Article IV, Section 2c) and CC&Rs (Article V, Section 1; Article VI, Section 1a). The central dispute stemmed from the HOA’s alleged failure to maintain or remove a bottle tree located on the Common Area adjacent to Petitioner’s property, resulting in root intrusion that caused heaving and cracking of Petitioner’s concrete slab and patio.
The damage was discovered in June 2021 during a home remodel, when Petitioner’s contractor tore up the concrete slab and found a substantial web of roots from the bottle tree. Petitioner sought total damages of $28,487, covering floor repair, patio replacement, grinding, and the $550.00 cost Petitioner incurred to remove the bottle tree.
Key Arguments
- Petitioner's Argument (Negligence and Maintenance Duty): Petitioner argued the HOA was negligent in its maintenance duty. Testimony established that bottle trees are known for their aggressive root systems, which can spread up to 100 feet, and should generally be planted at least 25 to 30 feet from structures. Petitioner argued that the HOA, responsible for common area maintenance, should have been aware of the risks posed by the bottle tree planted close to her home. Petitioner also cited the delay of several months in authorizing the removal of the tree as contributing to increased damages.
- Respondent's Argument (Lack of Knowledge and Origin): The HOA denied negligence, arguing they had fulfilled their duty by trimming the trees. Respondent asserted that the trees were planted by a predecessor homeowner, not the HOA or developer, and that Petitioner's own irrigation system had watered them. Crucially, the HOA argued that it was not negligent because it "did not know or have reason to know" of the subterranean root intrusion prior to the damage discovery in June 2021, and proactive root maintenance was not an industry standard.
Outcome and Legal Decision
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioner sustained her burden of proving a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
The ALJ granted Petitioner’s petition, concluding that the Respondent violated CC&Rs Article V section 1, Article VI section 1a, and Bylaws Article IV, Section 2c. The ALJ held that the HOA's duty to maintain the Common Area did not end at the boundary line. The core legal finding was that "But for the bottle tree being situated where it was and in the state it was in, there would not be roots coming onto Petitioner’s property to such an extent that caused any amount of damage or harm".
However, in a subsequent order clarifying the scope of authority, the ALJ noted that the statutes governing these disputes (A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.) do not grant the Administrative Law Judge authority to award compensatory damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory judgments.
The final *Order* required the Respondent to abide by the community documents and statutes specified. Specifically, the Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.
Questions
Question
If a tree in the HOA common area damages my home, is the HOA responsible even if the tree was planted by a previous homeowner?
Short Answer
Yes. The HOA's duty to maintain the common area applies regardless of who originally planted the tree.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that even though the parties presumed the trees were planted by an original homeowner decades ago, the HOA still had an obligation to maintain the common area. The HOA was found in violation of the CC&Rs because the tree located in the common area caused damage to the homeowner's property.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s duty to maintain the Common Area did not end at the boundary line of the Common Area. A tree in Respondent’s Common Area caused damage to Petitioner’s property.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article V Section 1; Article VI Section 1a
Topic Tags
- common area maintenance
- property damage
- landscaping
- liability
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge award me money (damages) to cover the cost of repairs to my home?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ does not have the statutory authority to award monetary damages or injunctive relief.
Detailed Answer
While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and order the HOA to abide by the community documents, they cannot order the HOA to pay for the repairs (damages). The homeowner may need to pursue a separate civil action for monetary compensation beyond the filing fee.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statutes applicable to these disputes provides the Administrative Law Judge with any additional authority to award damages, injunction relief, or declaratory judgments.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
- damages
- remedies
- jurisdiction
- repairs
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the ALJ is required to order the respondent to pay the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The decision explicitly ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the $500 filing fee because the petition was granted. This is a statutory requirement when the petitioner wins.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
- filing fees
- reimbursement
- costs
Question
Does the HOA's duty to 'maintain' landscaping include preventing root damage, or just trimming trees?
Short Answer
The duty to maintain includes preventing damage. Regular trimming is not sufficient if the roots are causing damage.
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that they fulfilled their duty by having a landscaper trim the trees. However, the ALJ found that despite this regular maintenance, the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the tree's existence and condition caused damage to the adjacent property.
Alj Quote
Despite Respondent’s contract with CityScape for regular arbor maintenance, the bottle tree’s roots caused lifting and heaving of Petitioner’s patio and concrete slab.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article V Section 1
Topic Tags
- maintenance definition
- landscaping
- negligence defense
Question
What is the standard of proof I need to meet to win a hearing against my HOA?
Short Answer
You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner bears the burden of proof. This standard means you must show that your claim is 'more probably true than not' or carries the greater weight of the evidence.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- legal standards
- evidence
Question
Is the HOA liable if they claim they didn't know the roots were causing problems?
Short Answer
Yes. Lack of knowledge or 'negligence' is not necessarily the standard for a CC&R violation in this context.
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued they were not negligent because they did not know about the root intrusion. The ALJ ruled against them anyway, basing the decision on the strict violation of the duty to maintain the common area which resulted in damage, effectively setting aside the 'we didn't know' defense.
Alj Quote
Respondent further argued that because it did not know or have reason to know of the root intrusion, Respondent was not negligent… [However,] the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that… Petitioner established a violation… her petition must be granted.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article V Section 1
Topic Tags
- negligence
- liability
- defense arguments
Case
- Docket No
- 22F-H2221013-REL
- Case Title
- Nancy L. Pope vs. La Vida Homeowners Association
- Decision Date
- 2022-03-02
- Alj Name
- Tammy L. Eigenheer
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Questions
Question
If a tree in the HOA common area damages my home, is the HOA responsible even if the tree was planted by a previous homeowner?
Short Answer
Yes. The HOA's duty to maintain the common area applies regardless of who originally planted the tree.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that even though the parties presumed the trees were planted by an original homeowner decades ago, the HOA still had an obligation to maintain the common area. The HOA was found in violation of the CC&Rs because the tree located in the common area caused damage to the homeowner's property.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s duty to maintain the Common Area did not end at the boundary line of the Common Area. A tree in Respondent’s Common Area caused damage to Petitioner’s property.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article V Section 1; Article VI Section 1a
Topic Tags
- common area maintenance
- property damage
- landscaping
- liability
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge award me money (damages) to cover the cost of repairs to my home?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ does not have the statutory authority to award monetary damages or injunctive relief.
Detailed Answer
While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and order the HOA to abide by the community documents, they cannot order the HOA to pay for the repairs (damages). The homeowner may need to pursue a separate civil action for monetary compensation beyond the filing fee.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statutes applicable to these disputes provides the Administrative Law Judge with any additional authority to award damages, injunction relief, or declaratory judgments.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
- damages
- remedies
- jurisdiction
- repairs
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the ALJ is required to order the respondent to pay the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The decision explicitly ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the $500 filing fee because the petition was granted. This is a statutory requirement when the petitioner wins.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
- filing fees
- reimbursement
- costs
Question
Does the HOA's duty to 'maintain' landscaping include preventing root damage, or just trimming trees?
Short Answer
The duty to maintain includes preventing damage. Regular trimming is not sufficient if the roots are causing damage.
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that they fulfilled their duty by having a landscaper trim the trees. However, the ALJ found that despite this regular maintenance, the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the tree's existence and condition caused damage to the adjacent property.
Alj Quote
Despite Respondent’s contract with CityScape for regular arbor maintenance, the bottle tree’s roots caused lifting and heaving of Petitioner’s patio and concrete slab.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article V Section 1
Topic Tags
- maintenance definition
- landscaping
- negligence defense
Question
What is the standard of proof I need to meet to win a hearing against my HOA?
Short Answer
You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner bears the burden of proof. This standard means you must show that your claim is 'more probably true than not' or carries the greater weight of the evidence.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- legal standards
- evidence
Question
Is the HOA liable if they claim they didn't know the roots were causing problems?
Short Answer
Yes. Lack of knowledge or 'negligence' is not necessarily the standard for a CC&R violation in this context.
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued they were not negligent because they did not know about the root intrusion. The ALJ ruled against them anyway, basing the decision on the strict violation of the duty to maintain the common area which resulted in damage, effectively setting aside the 'we didn't know' defense.
Alj Quote
Respondent further argued that because it did not know or have reason to know of the root intrusion, Respondent was not negligent… [However,] the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that… Petitioner established a violation… her petition must be granted.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article V Section 1
Topic Tags
- negligence
- liability
- defense arguments
Case
- Docket No
- 22F-H2221013-REL
- Case Title
- Nancy L. Pope vs. La Vida Homeowners Association
- Decision Date
- 2022-03-02
- Alj Name
- Tammy L. Eigenheer
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Nancy L Pope (petitioner)
- Ed Humston (witness)
H&H Enterprises of Arizona
Petitioner's Contractor
Respondent Side
- Erik J. Stone (HOA attorney)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. - Gabrielle Sherwood (property manager)
City Property Management
Community Manager for La Vida HOA - Debbie Duffy (board member)
La Vida Homeowners Association
Board Secretary - Lawrence Oliva (board member)
La Vida Homeowners Association
Board President - Barbara (board member)
La Vida Homeowners Association
Mentioned in email correspondence
Neutral Parties
- Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
OAH - Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
ADRE - Santos Diaz (witness)
CareScape
Area Manager for CareScape, Respondent's landscaper - c. serrano (unknown)
Transmitted documents - Miranda Alvarez (unknown)
Transmitted documents - AHansen (unknown)
ADRE staff
Recipient of transmission - djones (unknown)
ADRE staff
Recipient of transmission - DGardner (unknown)
ADRE staff
Recipient of transmission - vnunez (unknown)
ADRE staff
Recipient of transmission - tandert (unknown)
ADRE staff
Recipient of transmission