Briefing Document: Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). The dispute centered on a series of six violation notices and associated fines issued by the Association to the Petitioner regarding the landscaping of his front yard between January and June 2021.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in partial favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Association violated its own governing documents. The core of the decision rested on the finding that the Association’s violation notices were “vague, overbroad, and nondescript,” failing to provide the specific steps necessary for the homeowner to cure the alleged violations as required by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Critically, the ALJ also determined that the Association cited an inapplicable article of the CC&Rs (pertaining to construction activities) in all of its notices, when a different article (concerning landscaping maintenance) should have been used.

As a result, the Petitioner’s petition was granted in part, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00, representing a pro rata portion of his filing fee. While the petition’s claims of improper fine progression and violations of state law were denied, the central finding regarding the insufficiency of the notices effectively invalidated the basis for the Association’s enforcement action.

Case Overview

Case Name

Wesley T Chadwick, Petitioner, vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, Respondent

Case Number

22F-H2221022-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark

Petitioner

Wesley T Chadwick (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Nick Eicher, Esq. & Eadie Rudder, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP)

Key Witnesses

Danielle Miglio (Association Property Manager), Cynthia Ecker (Association Board Vice President)

Hearing Date

May 25, 2022

Decision Date

June 14, 2022

Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict unfolded over approximately six months, followed by a period of appeals and the formal administrative hearing.

Jan 25, 2021

Petitioner receives 1st Notice citing Article 4.5 for weeds. Directive is “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS.”

Feb 09, 2021

Petitioner receives 2nd Notice, identical to the first, with an added $50.00 fine.

Feb 10, 2021

Petitioner hires contractors to remove dead cacti (350)andweeds(100).

Feb 25, 2021

Petitioner receives 3rd Notice, identical to the first two, with an added $100.00 fine.

Mar 18, 2021

Petitioner and the Association’s property management company (OPM) reach an agreement via email: the $100 fine is waived in exchange for payment of the $50 fine, provided no new weed violations occur within 90 days.

Mar 23, 2021

Petitioner receives 4th Notice (dated March 15), which now includes the directive “fix rock area” and a $100.00 fine.

Mar 30, 2021

Petitioner receives 5th Notice, identical to the fourth, with another $100.00 fine.

Apr 05, 2021

In an email exchange, OPM manager Danielle Miglio provides a photo with circled areas of concern, identifying exposed irrigation lines, holes, weeds, and an overgrown plant for the first time with specificity.

May 2021

Petitioner submits a formal request to the Board of Directors to review the case and waive fines.

June 2021

Petitioner is informed his request was denied by the Board.

June 16, 2021

Petitioner receives 6th Notice, which reverts to “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and adds a $100.00 fine.

June 22, 2021

OPM informs Petitioner the Board would not waive fees until the violation is closed, but could remove $75 after three months of compliance.

Sep 23, 2021

Petitioner appears at a Board meeting to appeal; his request is again denied.

Oct 14, 2021

Petitioner files his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

May 25, 2022

An all-day evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

June 14, 2022

The Administrative Law Judge issues a final decision.

Core Allegations and Arguments

The hearing addressed four specific issues raised in the Petitioner’s petition, which formed the basis of the legal arguments.

Petitioner’s Position (Wesley T Chadwick)

1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Lack of Specificity): The violation notices were fundamentally deficient because they failed to provide “specific steps which must be taken… to cure the violation.” Directives like “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were overly broad. The entire front yard consists of rock, making “fix rock area” ambiguous. The Association only provided clarity with a circled photograph after issuing multiple notices and fines.

2. Violation of CC&R Article 4.5 (Exceeding Authority): The Association exceeded its authority by issuing violations for issues not explicitly covered by the language it quoted in the notices, such as exposed irrigation lines or a specific plant which was not a weed. The notices selectively quoted the portion of Article 4.5 related to weeds and debris, omitting the broader “unsightly” language, which misled the Petitioner as to the nature of the violation.

3. Violation of CC&R Article 10.1 (Improper Fine Progression): The introduction of a new issue, “fix rock area,” in the fourth notice constituted a new violation. As such, it should have been preceded by a warning notice, not an immediate $100 fine as part of a continuing violation.

4. Violation of CC&R Article 10.10 (Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement): The Association enforced its rules selectively and arbitrarily. This was evidenced during the hearing when the Board’s Vice President, Cynthia Ecker, admitted under oath that her own property had exposed irrigation lines visible from the yard, yet she had never received a violation notice.

Respondent’s Position (Entrada Mountainside HOA)

1. Broad Discretionary Authority: CC&R Article 4.5 grants the Association’s Architectural Committee the “exclusive right to determine the existence of any nuisance” and provides wide discretion to enforce against any condition deemed “unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental.”

2. Continuing Nature of the Violation: The entire series of violations stemmed from a single, ongoing issue of poor landscape maintenance. The Petitioner created the “debris”—the hole and exposed irrigation lines—by failing to complete the remediation after removing the cacti. This was a continuation of the original violation, not a new one, and thus did not require a new warning notice.

3. Petitioner’s Responsibility: The Petitioner failed to use his right to appeal the initial notices and only engaged with the Association after three notices had been issued. He admitted to not having reviewed the Association’s official landscape guidelines. The onus was on him to seek clarification if he found the notices unclear.

4. Good Faith Efforts to Comply: The Association manager went “above and beyond” by sending a detailed photo with circled areas, a measure not typically taken. The Association also demonstrated a willingness to work with the Petitioner on fines by waiving the initial $100 fine and later offering a potential $75 reduction.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision focused on the procedural adequacy and legal foundation of the Association’s violation notices.

Final Ruling

The petition was GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

• Granted: The claim that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific notice was upheld.

• Denied: The claims that the Association violated CC&R Articles 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10 were not sustained.

Key Findings and Rationale

1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): This was the central finding in the Petitioner’s favor. The ALJ concluded the Association failed its contractual obligation to provide adequate notice.

◦ Direct Quote from Decision: “Here, what the Association did was essentially tell Petitioner to ‘fix this’ without telling him exactly what needed fixing and affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply.”

◦ The directives “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were deemed insufficient to inform a person of ordinary prudence of the specific actions required, such as covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant.

◦ The fact that the Association later had to provide a photograph with “circled with specific areas of concern after issuing multiple warning letters” was cited as evidence that the initial notices were inadequate.

2. Misapplication of CC&R Article 4.5 (Nuisances): In a critical finding, the ALJ determined that the Association had cited the wrong governing article in all six of its notices.

◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that CC&Rs Article 4.5 is inapplicable as the regulation pertains solely to construction activities… CC&Rs Article 4.4 [Maintenance of Landscaping] should have been used by Respondent.”

◦ This finding invalidated the legal basis for every notice issued to the Petitioner.

3. Ruling on Other Allegations:

◦ Article 10.1 (Enforcement): The ALJ found no violation, concluding that notices 2-6 all “stemmed from the same issue(s)” raised in the first letter and were not new violations requiring a separate warning.

◦ Article 10.10 (Laws, Ordinances and Regulations): The ALJ found no violation because the “Petitioner failed to allege that Respondent violated a specific law, ordinance or regulation.” This indicates the claim of arbitrary enforcement was not sustained on a technical basis, despite the testimony from the Board’s Vice President.

Final Order

Based on the finding that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9:

• IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay $500.00 to Petitioner; a pro rata portion of his filing fee, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the ORDER.