Case Summary
| Case ID | 24F-H003-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2024-02-22 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Jenna Clark |
| Outcome | Petitioner sustained its burden of proof establishing that Respondents violated CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 by operating a cat rescue business (VKNR) from their residence, which involved unauthorized commercial activity, excessive non-pet animals, and creating a nuisance. Violation of 7.29 was not established. The petition was granted. |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $1,000.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association | Counsel | Anthony Rossetti, Esq. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Duane Eitel & Mary Eitel | Counsel | Kevin Harper, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article VII, sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, 7.29, and 7.31
Outcome Summary
Petitioner sustained its burden of proof establishing that Respondents violated CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 by operating a cat rescue business (VKNR) from their residence, which involved unauthorized commercial activity, excessive non-pet animals, and creating a nuisance. Violation of 7.29 was not established. The petition was granted.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized business out of their home and housing dozens of cats in excess of a reasonable number of household pets, creating a nuisance.
Respondents operated a nonprofit cat rescue (VKNR) from their single-family residence, housing 50+ cats in a 3-car garage, which constituted an unauthorized commercial use, exceeded a reasonable number of pets, and created traffic and waste nuisances.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31.
Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- CC&Rs section 7.2
- CC&Rs section 7.3
- CC&Rs section 7.25
- CC&Rs section 7.26
- CC&Rs section 7.28
- CC&Rs section 7.31
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
- 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. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
- Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1094853.pdf
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1113338.pdf
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1125372.pdf
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1147484.pdf
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1094853.pdf
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1113338.pdf
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1125372.pdf
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1147484.pdf
This case, *VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association v. Duane S & Mary L Eitel* (No. 24F-H003-REL), was heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Key Facts and Issues
The Petitioner, VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association (the Association), filed a petition alleging that the Respondents, Duane S. Eitel and Mary L. Eitel, violated several Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by operating an unauthorized business out of their home and housing cats far in excess of a "reasonable number of household pets".
The primary CC&R sections alleged to be violated were:
- 7.2 (Residential Use) & 7.3 (No Commercial Use): Prohibiting commercial use, manufacturing, storing, or vending on the lot.
- 7.25 (Animals): Limiting animals to a reasonable number of generally recognized household pets, and stating that state and county laws govern pet numbers, noise, and nuisance.
- 7.26, 7.28, 7.29, and 7.31: Related to nuisance, garbage, debris, diseases, and maintaining a safe and orderly condition.
The core factual dispute centered on the operation of Valley Kitten Nursery & Rescue Inc. (VKNR), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Respondents historically stored over fifty (50) cats/kittens in their three-car garage pending private adoption. Pinal County had previously determined the operation was an unauthorized use subject to a zoning violation in 2017.
Hearing Proceedings and Arguments
The evidentiary hearing took place on November 14, 2023.
Petitioner's Argument: The Association argued that Respondents were unequivocally running a business. This assertion was supported by evidence that VKNR has an Employer Identification Number (EIN), charges adoption fees ($125 for kittens, $95 for adult cats), and handles cats as "a product," not pets. Furthermore, housing 50+ non-pet animals in the garage was unreasonable and violated residential use restrictions. Petitioner’s witness testified to observing cars, deliveries, and volunteers cleaning cages in the driveway, creating concerns about debris, waste runoff, and biohazardous materials.
Respondent's Argument: Respondents argued that VKNR is a volunteer nonprofit and therefore not a "commercial business" prohibited by CC&R 7.3. They asserted they were fostering animals and that adoption fees merely covered costs. Respondent Duane Eitel (DE) testified that the operation was run so that adopters did not pick up cats at the residence (with limited exceptions), and that the cleaning processes had been moved to the rear yard in response to earlier complaints. They noted that Pinal County had never issued a final violation regarding the number of cats.
Procedural Outcome and Final Decision
Following the presentation of evidence, the ALJ recessed the hearing to encourage settlement, placing the matter in "Status". The status period was extended until February 2, 2024. As the parties were unable to settle, they requested the ALJ issue a decision based on the hearing record.
The ALJ issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision on February 22, 2024, finding that the Petitioner sustained its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Legal Findings:
- The ALJ concluded that Respondents' operation of VKNR constituted a "clear business model". The assertion that VKNR is not a "business" because it is a nonprofit was deemed "both technically and legally inaccurate".
- Respondent DE admitted that the 50+ animals housed in the garage were not pets.
- The continued operation, including visible debris and the scope of the operation, created a nuisance and traffic issues.
- The ALJ found violations of CC&R sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 were established. (A violation of 7.29 was not established).
Final Order: The Association's petition was granted. Respondents were ordered to **henceforth abide by CC&R sections 7.2,
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H003-REL
7 sources
In a legal dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association alleged that residents Duane and Mary Eitel violated community CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized cat rescue from their garage. The association contended that housing dozens of animals constituted an illegal business and a nuisance that impacted the neighborhood’s residential character. While the homeowners argued their nonprofit fostering was a charitable endeavor rather than a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the large-scale operation exceeded the “reasonable number of pets” allowed. Evidence from Pinal County inspections and neighbor testimony confirmed that the garage held over 50 cats, leading to concerns over traffic, sanitation, and debris. Ultimately, the judge found the homeowners in violation of multiple governing documents and ordered them to cease operations.
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H003-REL
7 sources
In a legal dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association alleged that residents Duane and Mary Eitel violated community CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized cat rescue from their garage. The association contended that housing dozens of animals constituted an illegal business and a nuisance that impacted the neighborhood’s residential character. While the homeowners argued their nonprofit fostering was a charitable endeavor rather than a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the large-scale operation exceeded the “reasonable number of pets” allowed. Evidence from Pinal County inspections and neighbor testimony confirmed that the garage held over 50 cats, leading to concerns over traffic, sanitation, and debris. Ultimately, the judge found the homeowners in violation of multiple governing documents and ordered them to cease operations.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Anthony Rossetti (petitioner attorney, property manager)
Rossetti Management & Realty Services
Represented Petitioner and owned the newly hired management company. - Douglas Karolak (witness, homeowner)
VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member
Testified on behalf of Petitioner. - Nicole Elliot (property manager)
Norris Management
Former HOA management committee/manager who issued warning letters. - CD Mai (homeowner/neighbor)
VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member
Mentioned by Karolak as a vocal opponent/adjacent neighbor to the Eitels.
Respondent Side
- Duane Eitel (respondent, witness)
VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member
Referred to as Duane S Eitel in earlier documents; DE in the decision. - Mary Eitel (respondent)
VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member, CEO/Director of Valley Kitten Nursery & Rescue Inc.
Referred to as Mary L Eitel in earlier documents. - Kevin Harper (respondent attorney)
Harper Law, PLC
Neutral Parties
- Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - Christopher Sinco (code compliance officer)
Pinal County Animal Control
Involved in the 2017/2018 county inspection.
Other Participants
- Scott Lenderman (property manager)
HOA management administrator (prior to Rossetti)
Mentioned as the first HOA management administrator.