Case Summary
| Case ID | 24F-H023-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2024-05-16 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Sondra J. Vanella |
| Outcome | total_loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Casas Arroyo Association, Inc. | Counsel | David Onuschak, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
Article II Section 1(c)
Outcome Summary
Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c). The cited provision was inapplicable because the security gate installation did not involve transferring common area to a public agency or increasing the density of residences (the clause was read conjunctively).
Why this result: CC&R Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable because the sentence regarding improvements and density was written in the conjunctive using the word “and,” meaning the improvement must both be placed upon the common area AND increase the density of residences, neither of which applied to the security gate installation.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&Rs regarding vote threshold for placing improvements on common area.
Petitioners alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c) by approving the installation of a security gate on the common area using a two-thirds standard of those who voted (resulting in 27 affirmative votes, 69-72% approval rate) when they asserted three quarters (3/4 or 30 votes out of 39 eligible lots) of eligible votes was required for an improvement on the common area.
Orders: Petitioners’ Petition is dismissed; no action is required of Respondent.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 32-2199
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
- CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
- CC&R Article IV Section 2
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H023-REL Decision – 1133251.pdf
24F-H023-REL Decision – 1135497.pdf
24F-H023-REL Decision – 1168799.pdf
24F-H023-REL Decision – 1178674.pdf
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the CC&Rs during a dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof required is a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- procedural requirements
- evidence
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This legal standard requires that the evidence presented has superior weight and is convincing enough to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other. It is not necessarily about having a greater number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
Topic Tags
- legal standards
- evidence
- definitions
Question
Can I interpret a specific sentence in the CC&Rs in isolation to prove a violation?
Short Answer
No, CC&R provisions must be interpreted within the context of the entire provision.
Detailed Answer
A homeowner cannot cherry-pick a specific clause or sentence to claim a violation. The Administrative Law Judge will look at the entire section to understand the intended scope and application of the restriction.
Alj Quote
One cannot read Section 1(c) of Article II without taking into consideration the context of the entire provision
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation Principles
Topic Tags
- CC&R interpretation
- legal standards
- context
Question
How does the word 'and' affect the interpretation of restrictions in the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
The word 'and' is conjunctive, meaning clauses it connects must be read together, not as separate independent choices.
Detailed Answer
If a CC&R provision lists restrictions connected by 'and' (e.g., no improvements AND no actions increasing density), it implies the conditions are linked. The ALJ distinguished this from the disjunctive 'or'. In this case, a restriction on improvements was linked to increasing density/transferring land because they were joined by 'and'.
Alj Quote
This sentence is written in the conjunctive. The word 'and' is used to connect the two clauses. It is not written in the disjunctive, as the word 'or' is not part of the sentence.
Legal Basis
Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts
Topic Tags
- contract interpretation
- grammar
- legal standards
Question
Can the HOA use general assessment funds for safety improvements without a special homeowner vote?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs grant authority to use assessments for health, safety, and welfare.
Detailed Answer
If the CC&Rs state that assessments are for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents, the Board may use general funds for improvements like security gates without a specific supermajority vote typically reserved for special assessments or land transfers.
Alj Quote
Article IV Section 2 of the 2006 recorded CC&Rs grant authority to Respondent to use the general assessment monies to 'promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents.'
Legal Basis
CC&R Article IV Section 2
Topic Tags
- assessments
- HOA powers
- safety improvements
Question
Does a CC&R requirement for a 3/4 vote to 'transfer' common area apply to installing a gate?
Short Answer
No, installing a gate is not considered dedicating or transferring land.
Detailed Answer
A CC&R clause requiring a supermajority vote to dedicate or transfer common area to a public agency does not apply to the installation of a security gate, as the gate does not constitute a transfer of land ownership.
Alj Quote
The installation of a security gate does not dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.
Legal Basis
CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
Topic Tags
- voting requirements
- common area
- improvements
Question
Does a restriction on increasing the 'density of residences' apply to security improvements?
Short Answer
No, security improvements like gates do not increase residential density.
Detailed Answer
If a voting requirement in the CC&Rs is triggered by actions that 'increase the density of residences,' it does not apply to infrastructure improvements like security gates that have no effect on the number of homes or density.
Alj Quote
Further, the installation of a security gate is not an improvement that increases the density of the residences. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.
Legal Basis
CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
Topic Tags
- density
- improvements
- voting requirements
Case
- Docket No
- 24F-H023-REL
- Case Title
- Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
- Decision Date
- 2024-05-16
- Alj Name
- Sondra J. Vanella
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the CC&Rs during a dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof required is a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- procedural requirements
- evidence
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This legal standard requires that the evidence presented has superior weight and is convincing enough to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other. It is not necessarily about having a greater number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
Topic Tags
- legal standards
- evidence
- definitions
Question
Can I interpret a specific sentence in the CC&Rs in isolation to prove a violation?
Short Answer
No, CC&R provisions must be interpreted within the context of the entire provision.
Detailed Answer
A homeowner cannot cherry-pick a specific clause or sentence to claim a violation. The Administrative Law Judge will look at the entire section to understand the intended scope and application of the restriction.
Alj Quote
One cannot read Section 1(c) of Article II without taking into consideration the context of the entire provision
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation Principles
Topic Tags
- CC&R interpretation
- legal standards
- context
Question
How does the word 'and' affect the interpretation of restrictions in the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
The word 'and' is conjunctive, meaning clauses it connects must be read together, not as separate independent choices.
Detailed Answer
If a CC&R provision lists restrictions connected by 'and' (e.g., no improvements AND no actions increasing density), it implies the conditions are linked. The ALJ distinguished this from the disjunctive 'or'. In this case, a restriction on improvements was linked to increasing density/transferring land because they were joined by 'and'.
Alj Quote
This sentence is written in the conjunctive. The word 'and' is used to connect the two clauses. It is not written in the disjunctive, as the word 'or' is not part of the sentence.
Legal Basis
Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts
Topic Tags
- contract interpretation
- grammar
- legal standards
Question
Can the HOA use general assessment funds for safety improvements without a special homeowner vote?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs grant authority to use assessments for health, safety, and welfare.
Detailed Answer
If the CC&Rs state that assessments are for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents, the Board may use general funds for improvements like security gates without a specific supermajority vote typically reserved for special assessments or land transfers.
Alj Quote
Article IV Section 2 of the 2006 recorded CC&Rs grant authority to Respondent to use the general assessment monies to 'promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents.'
Legal Basis
CC&R Article IV Section 2
Topic Tags
- assessments
- HOA powers
- safety improvements
Question
Does a CC&R requirement for a 3/4 vote to 'transfer' common area apply to installing a gate?
Short Answer
No, installing a gate is not considered dedicating or transferring land.
Detailed Answer
A CC&R clause requiring a supermajority vote to dedicate or transfer common area to a public agency does not apply to the installation of a security gate, as the gate does not constitute a transfer of land ownership.
Alj Quote
The installation of a security gate does not dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.
Legal Basis
CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
Topic Tags
- voting requirements
- common area
- improvements
Question
Does a restriction on increasing the 'density of residences' apply to security improvements?
Short Answer
No, security improvements like gates do not increase residential density.
Detailed Answer
If a voting requirement in the CC&Rs is triggered by actions that 'increase the density of residences,' it does not apply to infrastructure improvements like security gates that have no effect on the number of homes or density.
Alj Quote
Further, the installation of a security gate is not an improvement that increases the density of the residences. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.
Legal Basis
CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
Topic Tags
- density
- improvements
- voting requirements
Case
- Docket No
- 24F-H023-REL
- Case Title
- Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
- Decision Date
- 2024-05-16
- Alj Name
- Sondra J. Vanella
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Robert P. Fink (petitioner)
Testified on own behalf - Brittany L. Oleson (petitioner)
Also referred to as Brittany L. Olsen - Juanita Havill (witness)
Former HOA board President, Vice President, and Treasurer
Respondent Side
- David Onuschak (HOA attorney)
Jones Skelton & Hochuli - Tom Hardesty (board president)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc. - Thomas Ryan (board member)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Current Treasurer - Eric Powell (board member)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Also referred to as Erik Powell; testified for Respondent; former President and Secretary - Jim Chepales (board member)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc. - Paula Miller (witness)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Board Secretary - Leslie Kramer (HOA attorney)
Provided legal opinions to the HOA; Affidavit admitted as Exhibit 32 - Edwin Gaines (HOA attorney)
Provided legal opinion to the HOA; Declaration admitted as Exhibit 31 - Michael Shupe (HOA attorney)
Consulted by the Board regarding the petition - Kevin Wallace (former board member)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Former Vice President
Neutral Parties
- Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - Rosalyn Buchas (Border Patrol Agent)
US Customs and Border Protection
Author of 2014 report referenced - Ben Cummings (Border Patrol Agent)
US Customs and Border Protection
Attended 2014 meeting
Other Participants
- David Steedman (former board member)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Former Treasurer; present as an observer - Emily Masta (community member)
Mentioned in board email communications - Jay Deforest (community member)
Called 2014 Border Patrol meeting - Mark Stroberg (community member)
Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting - Barbara Stoneberg (community member)
Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting - Steven Sue Archbald (community member)
Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting - Laura Brown (community member)
Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal - Archerald Brown (community member)
Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal